House of Commons Hansard #96 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was seniors.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives believe in lifting up all Canadians by reducing taxes, getting Canadians back to work, attracting investment and making Canada more competitive.
When it comes to everyday Canadians, life is becoming less and less affordable, in part because the government is printing money and—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton gave us so much information, and I think we have all learned from it. If I add what I heard from him to what I have to say, we will have a fulsome speech, because like him, I want to talk about individuals. I will get to that.
I am giving my speech from the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, and to begin, I want to talk about families, individuals and businesses. We know they are all going through a very difficult time, and I do not think there is a member of Parliament who has not heard the challenges. We have all heard extraordinarily heart-wrenching stories, and we want to make Canada a better place.
I am going to start with some of the positives. I have heard a lot of people say that we are being negative about this, but let us be honest: Last year, if it were not for the opposition parties, there would not have been a wage subsidy to keep businesses afloat. The initial wage subsidy program was 10%, and it was increased later on after pressure from a lot of people on my side, my Conservative colleagues who were small business owners and accountants, and from other colleagues who sit in the other opposition benches. The wage subsidy program is something I can support in this budget.
We know people are continuing to struggle to keep their businesses open. We are hearing a lot of information on this from the CFIB, the St. Thomas & District Chamber of Commerce, in my area, and a variety of other sources. They are indicating the difficulties that many businesses are having. In my local economy, 17% of businesses did better during COVID; however, we have to look at those that did worse. I therefore support the wage subsidy, as having this bridge so we can continue to work out of this crisis is absolutely what we need to do.
The same thing goes for the rent extension. It is another program that had to be tweaked and changed. Again, opposition parties, in particular the official opposition, worked to ensure this it was a good program. I want the government to know that when it comes forward with something, it is not the only one to have great ideas. I can say that all colleagues have brought forward some very good ideas that were adopted by the government in the early days of the pandemic.
There is also the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. Unfortunately, I see that some of my neighbours are still having—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We are having issues with the member's connection and the interpretation is not working.
We can now hear the interpretation well, so the hon. member may resume.
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Unfortunately Ontario continues to see lockdowns, and people are pointing fingers. I will be honest, if we knew there were vaccines, if we knew it was safe for Canadians to get back to work and for children to go back to school, if we knew things would recover at a quicker pace, then I think we would have a lot more faith. That is why the Canada recovery benefit is very important. I do appreciate the extension of it.
This is where I want to get into CEBA loans. This where I want to change where we are going. I had recently asked the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader about these types of things. The government improved the Canada emergency business account. It went from $40,000 to $60,000, allowing business owners to keep up to $20,000. There have been some changes to that, such as repayment of loans and a variety of things.
My concern today is for those entrepreneurs who have been working to start new businesses. In my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, a number of businesses have remained on the line of whether they will fail or make it through is incredible challenge. It is an extremely difficult for them. When they call my office, I refer them to the Elgin Business Resource Centre, or the Enterprise Centre, or their banks. I suggest a variety of different things. However, when they are not eligible for these programs, the answer remains no.
We know that a lot of these programs have a list of restrictions. I did get a message back from the office of the minister for small business minister to inform me they had an appeal process for CEBA. It was supposed to be rolled out for people who were denied that assistance, but there still is no appeals process. Shortly, the government will have something so if people want to know why their applications were denied, they might be able to find out.
Those are some of the issues that I continue to have. I have to wonder why the government would not have put something like that in there, knowing that small mistakes could be made. One of my constituents was denied the assistance because there was a reversal on his business account number. He had to reapply and he continued to be denied. To me, that is a very simple slip-up.
However, when people are feeling choked out because of we are going through COVID-19 and the fact that they have to revert to some of these restrictions, something as simple as a transit number on banking information could get transposed, something that we could all switch so quickly and the government does not have a mechanism to deal with that. It is very concerning.
I will talk about a few more businesses.
In the community of Dutton, Margaret Perry opened up a place called the Daily Grind Cafe and Gift Emporium. Unfortunately Margaret opened her business in December 2019, and did not qualify for any of the COVID relief programs.
We have Angela Player, and Angela will do sensationally one day, I have had what she has to offer. She has a business called From the Vines. She is unable to show an up to 20% decrease in her revenues. Angela has invested over $60,000 into her business, but her business has never had that normal period for comparison purposes. I know Angela's business, From the Vines, will make it, but the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest barrier for her and there are no programs to assist her. Nobody is there to help her. Her hands are tied. When I referred her to some of these smaller organizations that did get the federal funding, because of the eligibility requirements, they would not assist her.
I think of someone like Craig Voakes. Craig owns what is called the Squad Box in St. Thomas. It is a business built around providing pre and post-game nutrition, hydration and recovery products to hockey, soccer and baseball teams.
As a parent, I am one of those crazy moms. I am on the sidelines, cheering along. I think Craig sees people like me as a perfect person to make a business around. A lot of us will give to our children. We want to ensure they have great opportunities, but our children are not playing hockey, soccer or any of these indoor sports right now. For somebody like Craig, whose entire business is built around that, he does not have the opportunity. As well, Craig started his business in December 2020.
Then there is Purely Wicked. If people come into the city of St. Thomas, I tell them to go to Purely Wicked. It is a fun place and it has so many great little things.
Kim, who owns Purely Wicked, now employs two people. It started it in 2019. She had nothing to which she could compare her information. It is exactly same thing for Shawn Devrie at Given Shop. Some of the six or seven different businesses I am talking about are within half a kilometre, so we are looking at storefront after storefront that may have to close because there just have not been any opportunities.
Finally, I want to end with Karen Nixon. She has worked extremely hard. Before she had her children, she was working three jobs in the physical health field. When I saw that, I knew she would make it. Years ago, she and her husband made a business plan. They worked with F45 Training, which has a way of building its business case. However, what happened to Karen was similar to everyone else. Karen had started her business and would run it while she continued to work. She was laid off because she was in physical health field and there was no business for her.
Last summer, at seven o'clock, each and every, in the morning, people would work out in our backyard because she needed to run her business. That was a year ago. She still cannot open her business today. Therefore, I think of people like Karen and Gary, who I know have given their entire lives and all their savings to their businesses and they have been left without.
I have so much more to add to this, but my biggest concern with this budget is it seems to touch on so many things. It is unfocused and just throws money everywhere, but it does not give direct money for programs to help entrepreneurs and small business owners, the people who create jobs and are the engine of our economy.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London for bringing up all the programs that have helped Canadians and businesses get through these difficult times. I thank her for hinting that the government brought in largely NDP programs.
While the Conservatives support these programs that have helped the country survive over the last year, they are constantly asking who will pay for them. The NDP members think that it should be the super-wealthy who pay, the people who have made billions and billions of dollars over the last year through this pandemic.
Therefore, I would ask her again. Who do the Conservatives think should pay for this? I would ask the member not to say that she will rely on trickle-down economics.
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Madam Speaker, people do look at who will pay for this? Honestly, it is called tax reform. We need to look at the whole taxation system. I know that some great people are looking at this. There are inequalities across the board. I will not disagree with the member on that. However, what we are seeing are bits and pieces. We know there are so many loopholes and we need to look at those. We need to look at the bigger picture.
Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London. It was an honour to work with her at the Standing Committee on Status of Women last session. I know she will take a keen interest in women's issues and, of course, a she-covery.
She spoke at length about support programs. Many women-owned businesses are smaller. They are very small businesses that have a hard time meeting the eligibility criteria for the various programs. Many of these businesses are in sectors that might take longer to recover from the crisis. We see lots of women in the cultural sector, in tourism and even in the restaurant industry.
Does my colleague agree that supporting these women during the recovery is important and that the programs should be extended, at least for them, until the crisis is over?
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Madam Speaker, I really have enjoyed working with my colleague from Shefford over the last number of years. There has been a huge economic impact to women especially through COVID, but it is just on the economics. As a mother, a daughter and a grandmother, I look at not just the economics but the mental side to this and the supports that are needed.
I have said many times that many people are being crushed right now. As a mom, as a daughter, I am trying to ensure my parents are taken care of as well as my children and that is very difficult. Right now, we need those social supports to ensure our mental health is taken care of. On the economics side, we need to ensure there is the flexibility. Flexibility is extremely important. We need to find a balance between work and children and parents. We need to reinvest in that.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, the member's speech covered a lot of ground and a lot of programs that were needed to help people. I appreciate hearing her talk about the social programs we need to help people at this time. I know a lot of small businesses in my community are having a hard time. They are disappointed with the amount of money that came in for tourism dollars, because a lot of small businesses rely on tourism.
One of my concerns again is about the profiteering that has happened during this pandemic. We now know some 47 billionaires have a quarter of a trillion dollars of the Canadian wealth. They have gained $78 billion during this pandemic and they need to pay their fair share. Does the hon. member think they should pay their fair share as well?
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, if people make more, they pay more. That is very common. We already see that in the grading system of the tax system, but it should still continue to be reviewed.
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Madam Speaker, it is great to see some of my colleagues having a good laugh, some good discourse and a level of levity, despite the challenging circumstances.
I am very pleased to have the chance to speak to Bill C-30, which is the budget implementation act. I had the chance a couple weeks ago to speak to the budget writ large, and I am going to use my time here today to highlight some investments that may not be the headlines, but which I think are extremely important to what the budget represents in terms of major proposed programs.
I will start with the continuation of the emergency measures. Nova Scotia was not under lockdown two weeks ago. We had not suffered from the third wave that other jurisdictions in the country had. Right now we have over 1,000 cases in the province, which seems relatively small, but per capita it is quite significant.
These measures really matter. The government, by continuing the emergency wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and the Canada response benefit, the suite of programs, until September, with the ability to extend it under the legislation, illustrates that this is extremely important. I think I would be remiss if I did not start from that basis. Our government is committed to getting Canadians, individuals and businesses through the pandemic, and that is extremely important.
I want to talk about biomanufacturing investments. The budget would allocate $2.2 billion toward these types of initiatives. We know that coming into the pandemic. I think all parliamentarians, and indeed all Canadians and countries around the world, on the other side of the pandemic, are going to be asking themselves what the key industries we will need to make sure we have domestic capacity. Whether it is for an event like COVID or some other type of event, the country needs to have that capacity.
For me, one industry would be agriculture, but of course, biomanufacturing is important. Our government has made investments throughout the pandemic. We are committing to making sure this does not happen again.
I look at companies in my own riding. For example, in Windsor, Nova Scotia, there is BioVectra, which has its base in Prince Edward Island, but which also has a presence in my riding of Kings—Hants. I think of BioMedica. These are the companies we can build, and we can continue to nurture that local expertise to make sure we have the capacity in our country in the days ahead.
Long-term health care was something I heard a lot about during the height of the pandemic, particularly when the reports from the Canadian Armed Forces were presented on the conditions in Quebec and Ontario. We need to be able to create national standards. We need to do better in this domain.
Yes, it is the domain and the jurisdiction of the provinces, but the federal government has shown leadership on health care initiatives, and it is really important that there is $3 billion in the budget to help support those standards. This is on top of the fall economic statement, which had a billion dollars allocated directly to the provinces. Of course, my colleagues and others have talked at great length about the programs that have been put in place, such as the safe restart program, to help support provinces. I wanted to highlight that for Canadians who might be watching here today and, indeed, my own constituents.
We know that the cost of the pandemic has been significant, and our government, from day one, has said we will be there with individuals and small businesses. The deficit is about $355 billion this year alone because of that support, which we determined as a government was a better path than the economic scarring that would come of not intervening in a positive way.
It is important that this budget helps create and drive economic growth to make the spending we have taken on during the pandemic sustainable over time, so I want to take an opportunity, and hopefully my colleagues will listen with intent, to talk about some of the important measures in the budget that I think need to be highlighted.
I wrote in September 2020 about regulatory modernization and regulatory reform. This is an important element for small business and businesses across the board. I tip my cap to my predecessor, Scott Brison, who was president of the Treasury Board during the last Parliament. He served with great honour and respect in Kings—Hants for 22 years, and I consider him a mentor and a friend.
He took a great leadership role in the last Parliament on regulatory reform, and we are committing to build on that success in this budget with $6.1 million dollars allocated to continue efforts on that front at the federal level. I think that is extremely important.
Regarding interprovincial barriers to trade, estimates suggest that we could be losing somewhere between $50 billion and $130 billion to our economy every year because of internal barriers to trade. We would be allocating $21 million over the next three years toward trying to reduce those barriers and have co-operation between provinces and territories on harmonization of standards. We have a lot to gain in efficiencies and economic outcomes by working within Canada, and of course this is building on the success our government has already had in the last Parliament.
I talk about this a lot, but it bears repeating. We have an emerging wine sector in Kings—Hants. We have world-class wines. We know that the excise exemption that was created under the late Jim Flaherty in 2007 when he was the finance minister has been important to the success of our 100% Canadian wine industry. I am very pleased to see our government has committed $101 million over the next two years to help support the industry.
Of course, that is on the heels of the existing excise exemption being deemed not trade compliant. I look forward to working with the Minister of Agriculture and my colleagues to help keep driving those initiatives to support the sector in the days ahead. The ability to create interprovincial trade would allow small businesses in my riding of Kings—Hants to take advantage of that.
It is very difficult for consumers in Ontario or Quebec to enjoy some of our wines. I would encourage my colleagues to look at some of the many vineyards we have in the area. I am happy to provide recommendations. We need to be able to break down those barriers. I am proud our federal government got rid of any type of barriers at the federal level. I hope my provincial or territorial colleagues who might be watching can also take some leadership in easing and facilitating trade across provincial and territorial boundaries.
I do not think the Canada Small Business Financing Act has warranted a lot of conversation in this House, but I want to highlight some of the elements that are there. We know, particularly in rural communities, the importance of small businesses and what they mean with respect to providing jobs and opportunities for people in our communities. We are committing to expanding the loan eligibility under the Small Business Financing Act and increasing the maximum loan amount to $500,000 for non-real property loans.
We are also opening up opportunities for non-profits and charities. I have spoken at great length about the important role our volunteer sector plays, particularly in rural Canada. I am very pleased to see it will have access to financing under this mechanism as well, and a new line of credit option.
We will help reduce credit card merchant fees. How many of us are paying cash right now? Not a whole lot of people. I am the type who still likes to have a bit of cash in my wallet, but more and more people are using credit or debit cards. Our government is committed to help reduce the merchant fees associated with online or credit card transactions. I see this as a very positive step. I know there are restaurants and many different retail businesses that will welcome this type of thinking.
I also want to talk about the $1.9 billion for what is the national trade corridors fund. I sit on the agriculture committee, and I consider myself an advocate in this House for agriculture-related issues. This national corridors trade fund is crucial to helping make sure we have important links to get our many wonderful Canadian agriculture products to export markets. I am very pleased to see this.
Also, there is additional money, over $500 million, for the borders to improve trade and travel. I think about the chicken producers who talk about spent fowl at the border. This money could go to support those types of mechanisms to protect our supply-managed industry, which I know is so important to so many members in this House and, indeed, to many Canadians.
I will finish with three quick points.
One is around significant investments in the aerospace industry. In Kings—Hants, Halifax Stanfield International Airport is just outside my riding boundary, but we have thousands of jobs in my riding that are tied to the aviation industry writ large. I am very pleased to see those types of investments in the budget.
I often talk about my riding in the context of agriculture, but in the same sense we are a coastal community. We are home to the highest tides in the world. The $300 million over the next two years for small craft harbours is extremely important.
Finally, there are historic investments for indigenous communities. I have three indigenous communities in my riding I am proud to represent. I am also proud that our government is continuing on its legacy and good work around reconciliation.
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Madam Speaker, I am curious to know what my colleague's take is on the amount of debt and deficit that would occur with this budget, not only in this current year, but in the couple years to follow.
If we are paying $40 billion or more a year just on interest to service our debt, that will have a negative impact on the sustainability of some of our social structures and programs moving forward and on maintaining them in the years to come. I would appreciate his opinion on that.
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Madam Speaker, I think any conversation about fiscal prudence in government is an important conversation. However, what I would say to my hon. colleague is that when we look at the budget annex, the debt-to-GDP ratio over the next five to six years is expected to decline. When we look at the cost to service the debt right now, despite the fact that we have taken on a lot of debt, of course, important debt to support Canadians, it is actually lower than what it was pre-pandemic.
I look at this plan and, yes, there is a significant amount of spending, but it is focused on jobs and on the creation of opportunities for Canadians. Ultimately, it is a fiscally prudent plan, and one that I look forward to supporting and talking to my constituents about in the days ahead.
Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Madam Speaker, I just want to remind our colleague that, even though the budget was positive, we voted against it. However, we will be supporting this Bill C‑30.
We voted against the budget for two reasons. First, the health funding it contains is not enough. We want recurrent funding, and we want it to go up from 22% to 35%. Second, as my colleagues mentioned earlier in their speeches, we want the government to increase old age pensions.
I have a question for my colleague. We are all familiar with page 733 of this brick of a budget, which says that Netflix is not subject to the Netflix act. Would the member please share his thoughts on that?
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague that I am quite disappointed that the Bloc will not be supporting the budget. There are a lot of very important investments that matter to Quebec and, of course, to his constituents as well. Although it does not come as a surprise, it does come as a disappointment.
The member referenced the brick, which I call an important document that has many great ideas for Canadians. Of course, if we are going to put out a vision that matters for the days ahead and for the future, it has to be comprehensive, and that is why it is quite substantive.
The member had a question that referenced page 833, but I was lost in the interpretation. I am happy to follow up with the member about Netflix and digital giants. I know that our government is focused on closing the gap in that regard, but perhaps I can follow up with my colleague offline to get to his question.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for his speech, and I would like to let him know that two of my best friends have just decided to retire to his riding. However, it may not be altogether good news for him, because they are not only personal friends, they are political friends and terrific organizers.
My question has to do with tourism. I heard the member talk about all the great things in the budget, but in the bill, we see we would start phasing-out support for small businesses, and phasing-out and cutting back on the CERB.
In my riding, we are about to lose our second season for international tourism, and it seems way too early to cut those supports, which people need to survive in the tourism industry. I wonder if the member finds the same thing in his riding, and that the phasing-out of the tourism support is coming just a bit too early.
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Madam Speaker, I will have to connect with the member offline to see who those political friends are. I will watch with interest, and maybe I will try to swing them into my camp, no matter how hard that could be.
The member raises an important question around tourism. I talked about the highest tides in the world in the area that is Kings—Hants. Many people from around the world want to come here.
There are a couple things that I would point the hon. colleague to. First, there is $500 million specifically for regional development agencies to support tourism operators. Also, the member's question was around the emergency supports, and yes, there is a declining amount starting in July, but the intention is to carry them on until September. At the end of the day, our government's approach, since day one, has been to adopt them as the health information comes out.
We do not know where we are going to be in September. Certainly, the vaccinations are on a good track. My hope is that by September we can be opening up and starting to relax some of the regulations that we have in place. All this to say that we have the flexibility in the legislation to be able to meet the needs of businesses, and we will do just that.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-30.
Before I start, I want to acknowledge and thank the voters for putting together a minority Parliament. I came here during the majority government in 2002. I have experienced majority governments for the Liberals and the Conservatives, as well as minority governments. I have found that this Parliament, at least, has been much more flexible and cooperative in many respects than the previous government, which had a large majority. At that time we heard that a lot of the things being proposed in this budget were unattainable for Canadians, such as child care and increases to employment insurance.
I am proud of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and others at the finance committee. With all of the presentations that have taken place, they have consistently come forward, arguing for better programs, investments and choices than we currently have. I became a New Democrat a little bit before Jack Layton, but when we got with Jack, we were more into proposition than opposition.
We are proud to have influenced this economic situation and challenges for Canadians, in bringing the Liberals to some action on items that we had been told could never be done. We were told there were not the finances for them or that they were bad for the economy and all sorts of different things.
During the majority government we had before, very little got done. A lot of things were put off. I think now we see much more activism in the base of Parliament. At times there is high drama, but definitely, as a minority Parliament, we have gotten more accomplished than we did in the previous government where getting any of these things done was often mocked. I point to the increased supports for small businesses, the wage subsidy and the CERB, all of which were basically left out of the initial response to the pandemic, including student debt. I could not say how many times I have stood in this chamber and argued that interest should not be applied to student debt because it is an investment. Interest would bring on further debt. Debt also delays family experiences because people have to put off life decisions. As opposed to paying down the interest on loans from the banks, that money could be going to investments for people's futures and also to our communities.
The problem that we have with some of the issues in this budget is that they do not get rid of the problems for the future, but just kick them down the road a little bit. The increased benefits for seniors are a good example: They are divided between people who are 65 and people who are 75, and division is not what we need now with COVID-19.
I look at what this arbitrary age division would mean for my constituency in Windsor, Tecumseh, Essex, and all the regions around us, as we have a significant senior population. We have a lot of people with health issues. The ecosystem that we are a part of includes the pollutants drifting from the United States as well as from our own industrial base, and means that the risks to people's health are much higher than elsewhere. We have scientific evidence of this. One of the reasons I got involved in politics at the federal level was the Gilbertson and Brophy report, in which the Chrétien government at that time tried to hide a government study showing higher rates of cancer, thyroid issues, respiratory issues and all kinds of issues for infants. All of those different things came to light.
What I am suggesting is that the age factor for seniors really makes no difference. The risk factors are almost the same. The government is dividing those people. I do not know why, when what we are having to invest is pennies in the overall scheme of things. That money, for the most part, goes to paying for rent and food. It goes into the local economy. It allows people to live with dignity. It often goes for medications. We still do not see a pharmacare element to this bill, which is unfortunate. When we look at the investments we also do not see dental care, which is really crucial.
That is why New Democrats are continuing to present the government with options they can look at. The U.S. administration under President Biden brought in a wealth tax. Many other countries have done that as well. There are, quite frankly, winners and losers under COVID-19 for a lot of different reasons. Part of that is public policy.
For good reasons different businesses have had to close or amend their business practices. It has been very challenging for them, through no fault of their own or anybody else, but to prevent the spread of COVID they have lost their regular income. That is why these employment subsidies are important. Other businesses have emerged from this and have really done quite well. We do not hear about insurance companies having problems because business is very lucrative right now.
We can see from the work done at the industry committee that the telco giants have done exceptionally well during this time. I will give some credit to them: There have been improved incentives for consumers, but the volume of products that have gone out has risen exponentially, as have their profits and their responsibility to help offset some things right now.
There is no petroleum monitoring agency in this budget. Gas pricing, the hosing of consumers and the lack of accountability are still significant problems in Canada because we do not publish the rack pricing the United States gets. There is less accountability for that in Canada. A petroleum monitoring agency was supposed to be brought in by the Paul Martin regime, but it was never fulfilled. A motion passed in the House of Commons that it was supposed to be established. It was created, then it was defunded, and then when the Conservatives took power it was off the books. It languished and was in the works for a long time. It took us years to even try to get it. That was an oversight of a basic thing. As a result, people pay more out of pocket.
There are still significant public subsidies for the oil and gas industry. In one of my first speeches on this issue, about a decade ago, I listed 17 different ways an oil and gas company could get a subsidy from the federal government at the time. Some of that has been reduced a little, but it is still not anywhere near where it should be. It is interesting that the U.S. taxes worldwide profits and Canada does not. The current administration in the U.S. is going to be introducing higher corporate taxes. If we do more subsidization, the profit margins will be higher here, so we will be sending dollars to Washington, so to speak.
We have to look at these things. There is no doubt about tax havens, as we have seen in the news again today. How ridiculous is this? How many times do people have to suffer through the inappropriate taxation policies we have now? People who can afford accountants and lawyers, and who squirrel money away, are seen as clever and capable. They get away with it, whereas in Windsor and Essex region the working class cannot afford those types of services to hide money and to pay less than other people. That is where there should be a significant improvement in this budget.
New Democrats have called for not only an investment in people, but also in green transportation infrastructure. In my area, the auto sector is significant and we fail to see much improvement in this budget. There are some vague references, but no measures to get results. There is still no Canadian national auto strategy. Last week, Ford Motor Company announced more funding for battery and electric vehicle production in Detroit and the surrounding area, which has eclipsed my area and the entire country. Detroit and the surrounding region have almost tripled or quadrupled all of Canada's investments in green auto infrastructure and strategies for battery and electric vehicle manufacturing and production. This is important, because a transition is taking place. If we look at jobs in the production of parts and all of the different components, we are losing more of that market share. What is unfortunate about that is we are also losing out on the growth of the industry beyond the auto sector by having that innovation take place.
Canadians are also worried about the passing on of debt, and how to finance it. That is why New Democrats have provided some solutions, such as a significant luxury tax, not just for boats and cars but for other things as well. Right now, real estate speculators for foreign investors are sitting on empty land and are getting away with using our tax haven system. That is a problem. As we look at this budget implementation act part one, keeping in mind that part two has to be done in the fall, Canadians can count on New Democrats to try to make things work here in this chamber.
Kristina Michaud Bloc Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I greatly appreciated. It reminded me of a headline I read yesterday in Le Devoir that said Ottawa sees the offshore oil industry as a net-zero partner.
Reading that, I felt my eyebrows go up, because I often say in the House that I see the environment and the economy as being complementary. This headline would have us believe that net-zero emissions and the oil industry could be complementary, which is an opinion I do not share. When I think of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the oil industry is not the first thing that comes to mind.
Does my colleague think that what the budget promises, especially in terms of funding, is enough to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets?
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is enough, and I do not think that we are pushing our budget parts and pieces to the levels they need to be. I mentioned the auto sector, for example. Without a national auto policy, we do not target the growth of the industry enough, versus the decline of it. I look at old plant areas like Sainte-Thérèse in Quebec, where there was amazing production and an amazing skilled work force. There still is some work going on in that area, but it is not what it used to be and it is a lost opportunity. They have to have some measurable items in there.
For the oil and gas industry, let us have accountability for pricing. Let consumers have that accountability.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
There will be three minutes remaining for questions and comments for my hon. friend for Windsor West when the House next gets back to debate on the question.
The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (bereavement leave), be read the third time and passed.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be the first to speak tonight.
First of all, I would like to note that International Workers Day was celebrated last week. In light of that, I take great interest in Bill C-220, which we are debating today, because it is part of the labour movement's long-standing struggle for the right to take leave to care for a sick family member.
To give a little background, this is an issue that concerns me for two reasons. First, when I was working in the—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
I will just interrupt the hon. member briefly to ask him to check something. I do not think the microphone on his headset is on. I think he is using the microphone on his computer.
Now that he has fixed the problem, I will ask him to continue.
The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.