Debates of Dec. 5th, 2022

Motions in Amendment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what the member does not tell Canadians is that in the last federal election, every Conservative member supported the Conservative election platform that clearly indicated to Canadians that a Conservative government would support a price on pollution. That means a carbon tax. On the one hand, during an election campaign, the Conservatives made a commitment to Canada, saying they supported a price on pollution. Today, they have reversed their position. Now they say they do not support a price on pollution.

I wonder if the member would be transparent and apologize to Canadians for making a promise then and now saying the Conservatives no longer support what they told Canadians.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will not apologize, but I will stand up proudly and say that Canadians across the country understand the damage and inefficiency of the carbon tax. Not only do they believe it should not increase, but it should not triple.

If we want to talk about broken promises under the Liberal government tabling legislation, former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who is no longer a member of the House, promised Canadians, under the Prime Minister, that the carbon tax would not go above $50 a tonne. The Liberals have broken their promise and will triple it to over $170 a tonne.

The government should be apologizing for breaking its promise and raising the cost of living on Canadians. The Conservatives are standing on the right side of the issue and we are seeing that in the momentum we are getting across the country with this message.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I agree with him. There are a number of things missing from this economic statement. I would like him to comment on the absence of the health transfers that are so important for all provinces, which are currently under a lot of pressure to meet needs and provide services. The money is in Ottawa, but the needs are in the provinces.

Does my colleague also think that there is something major missing with regard to health transfers?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her question and the opportunity to practise my second language this afternoon.

I agree with the question in general. On the health file, there is a major crisis in every province and every region of this country. We need leadership from the federal government and the Minister of Health. The government made a commitment to put more money into Canada's health transfer system. Every province will need more money and a five- to 10-year plan to increase health care services. Yes, a lot of things were missing from this economic statement, health transfers in particular.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry spent quite a bit of his speech speaking about a price on carbon, so I will spend some time on that.

What the member did not mention is that the economic cost of the wildfires in B.C. alone, let alone the deaths, is estimated between $10.6 billion to $17.1 billion. He is right to point out that emissions continue to go up, so obviously more needs to be done to address the climate crisis. Ending subsidies to fossil fuels should be part of that plan.

I would like to hear if the member is opposed to a carbon tax, which economists say is the most efficient way to address the climate crisis, one of many measures we need. We need to get more funds to those who are impacted the most by it. I would like to hear more from the member on what he would like to see done to have Canada step up and do its part to address the climate crisis.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, no, the Conservatives do not believe that the failed carbon tax is working. If we look at the metrics that the Green Party has itself, we have a carbon tax that has been increasing every year since it came into effect. We were told that emissions would drop when the carbon tax came in. Emissions have gone up every year and they will continue to do so. The government still has not tabled a plan to meet any of the targets it has set.

We can make progress on lowering emissions through removing gatekeepers and by enabling technology, not taxes, to be the solution. There is a lot—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there is a significant difference between the government and the official opposition when it comes to budgetary and legislative measures. We have a government that understands the importance of having the backs of Canadians, whether it is during a pandemic or at a time when Canadians are concerned about inflation.

The member made reference to a couple of issues, and I want to pick up on that because it amplifies the contrast. We, on this side of the House, believe in an economy that works for all Canadians. We do not believe in the trickle down theory of the Conservatives, which is to cut, or as the minister of revenue would say, “chop, chop.”

That is the approach of the Conservatives. They do not necessarily tell us where they are going to cut; they are just going to cut. It is because they do not want to be honest with Canadians and tell them what they want to cut. I often refer to this as the Conservative hidden agenda. Will we find out that hidden agenda if, heaven forbid, they form a government?

We get a sense of the contrast. If we look at the last federal election, when we think of policy, what does the Conservative Party really stand for? In the last federal election, 338 Conservative candidates from coast to coast to coast accepted the Conservative election platform, meaning they campaigned on it. Within that document, it says that the Conservative Party of Canada supports a price on pollution, which in essence is the carbon tax.

The Conservatives have been raising this issue day after day, coming up with the stupid thing of “triple, triple, triple”. It does not make any sense and the Conservatives do not make any sense on this issue. First, they supported it during the last election and now they have reversed their position. Then one of their members says that Canadians are a lot worse off because of the price on pollution and quotes the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I will quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has said that 80% of Canadians who are part of the backstop for the price on pollution are receiving more than they are actually spending. There is a net gain. That means 80% of the residents of Winnipeg North are benefiting from the price on pollution. When Conservatives say that it is going up, so is the rebate. My constituents are benefiting from that.

Are the Conservatives being honest on this issue? They are not, and they are spreading misinformation. We know that. We knew that shortly after the last national election, when they said that they would support it. Now saying they are not going to support it and are spreading misinformation about it.

Policy matters and leadership on major issues matter. That is why we wait with bated breath for the Conservative leader to stand and apologize to Canadians on his position on cryptocurrency. I and others have raised this issue in the past, when the leader of the Conservative Party, Canada's official opposition, was being provided the opportunity to apologize to Canadians for encouraging them to invest in cryptocurrency to fight inflation. Those who would have followed that advice would have incurred a loss of more than 60% of their revenue. Imagine being a senior on a fixed income and following the advice of the leader of the Conservative Party.

When it comes to the issue of inflation, the Conservative Party would have us believe that the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, is responsible for inflation in Canada and, in fact, beyond. Yes, we play a role, and we recognize the pain and hurt in our communities as a result of inflation, but let us put it in proper perspective.

Let us compare Canada's inflation rate to the U.S.A., Great Britain, most of the European countries and the G20 countries. When we look at the averages, Canada's inflation rate is below theirs. It fluctuates depending on provinces, but, generally speaking, our inflation rate is under control in comparison to other countries.

However, that is not good enough for us. We on the government benches recognize that Canadians are hurting when they buy groceries, require services or are putting fuel in their cars. We understand and appreciate that, which is why we have the fall economic statement. It is why we have brought forward legislation to provide relief to Canadians, measures that will put money in the pockets of Canadians and, in many ways, help Canadians get through this time of higher inflation.

For example, there is the doubling of the GST credit for six months. Remember, the Conservatives originally opposed that. They had to be shamed into supporting it. After all, it put money in the pockets of Canadians. After a little shaming, they came on side and supported that legislation. However, we did a lot more than that, and some high-profile things.

Just last week, Canadians, depending on eligibility and income, were provided dental care services for children under the age of 12. Many of those children, if they do not get that dental service, end up in our emergency hospitals. The Conservative Party, still today, is saying no to that. When it came time for the Conservatives to vote on it, they voted no for children under the age of 12 receiving dental care benefits.

There is the rental support, which, again, is direct money to support Canadians who are having a difficult time meeting rental payments. The Conservatives will say that it could have been more money, but the bottom line is that we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to assist Canadians with their rent. Again, the Conservative Party voted against that.

What about students? Interest on federal student loans is being forgiven. Again, the Conservative Party is voting against it.

I am a big fan of the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. It is a fantastic program. It will make a difference for many Canadians, for moms, dads and adults with disabilities, by providing a credit to add a secondary unit for those individuals. It is a significant credit, but the Conservatives are voting against that too.

There is a litany of things that the government is doing to provide Canadians the support they need during this difficult time, and time and again, the Conservatives have voted against them. As we continue to build an economy that works for all Canadians, we will do what we can to ensure that happens.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North likes to come up here and cast aspersions upon us as Conservatives. The Liberal Party always stands for “tax and spend”. I need to remind the member for Winnipeg North that these tax dollars are not the money of the Liberal Party of Canada. They belong to Canadians. The best place to leave that money is in the pockets of Canadians. For the member to get up and pontificate and slander the Conservatives is unbecoming of any parliamentary speech. It is common for the member to do.

The member often tells me he likes to come up to my riding where he has a cabin. He should spend some time talking to rural Manitobans. They know the carbon tax, which is tripling, will cost $1,145 more per Manitoban than what they get back from the government. Those Canadians who live in rural areas know the carbon tax is hurting them, especially those who live on fixed incomes, like seniors.

He needs to talk to real Canadians outside the Ottawa bubble so he knows exactly what is happening in the real world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to seniors. We brought in increases to the GIS that brought tens of thousands of seniors out of poverty and made a 10% increase for our seniors who are 75 and over. If the member wants to accuse me of upsetting a lot of Conservatives because of the words I say, I can assure the member that every word I say is, in fact, accurate. I think it is important that Canadians have a right to know what the Conservatives are saying. When the Minister of National Revenue says the words “chop, chop, chop”, she is right. The Conservative Party does have that mentality and the member opposite just demonstrated that in part. Canadians have a right to know.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the things that stand out about Bill C-32 are the things that are missing, and that includes a very important request from Quebeckers and my constituents.

I am talking about the two-tier pension system. The government increased pensions for people aged 75 and up, but it seems to think that seniors aged 65 to 75 do not need a pension increase.

I think they do need one, particularly with inflation being what it is right now. I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things I could say. One would be the fact that the Liberal Party made a campaign commitment to seniors who were 75 and over in the 2019 election that if we were elected into government, we would increase, by 10%, payments for seniors over 75. We are fulfilling an election campaign commitment.

If I were to have leave of the chamber to expand on that, I would be happy to explain why it is so critically important. I am disappointed that opposition members do not seem to want to recognize that seniors 75 and over often incur additional expenses. There are factors that need to be taken into consideration. That is why a caring government would do what we have done to support seniors in general.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing I was hoping to see in the fall economic statement and in this bill was some added help for graduate students across Canada. These are our best and brightest master's and Ph.D. students. The money they are given by the federal government to do their work has stayed the same for almost 20 years, since 2003. They are living in poverty, below the poverty line. They are working for less than minimum wage. For the last year, the science and research committee has recommended their wages go up and nothing has been done.

Can he explain why that is?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, within the budget, we now have the elimination of interest for students. That is a significant step forward for federal student loans where the interest is permanently being eliminated. That is putting money in the pockets of students. This will, I believe, enable students to do that much more in the future, whether that means continuing with their education or using that money elsewhere.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-32.

After reading Bill C‑32 and the proposed amendment, all I can say is that this bill just dusts off some old legislative measures. There is nothing to excite us or to show us what direction the government wants to take. This bill is actually rather disappointing.

As a former health care network manager in Quebec, I want to talk the fact that there is absolutely no mention of health transfers in this bill. That is a problem.

Coincidentally, I read a wonderful article in La Presse this morning by the former mayor of Gatineau, Maxime Pedneaud‑Jobin. I am actually somewhat envious of him. I wish I could have written that article myself, because what he said is exactly what I think about the whole debate on health transfers, namely, that needs are being expressed in the provinces and Quebec, but the money is in Ottawa.

I urge my Liberal and NDP colleagues to read the article. It is in French, but that would be a good way for them to practice their French. It is so interesting that it might even be worth getting it translated. Essentially, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin says that the needs vary so widely from one province to another that Canada-wide standards would not really help patients. The purpose of the health transfers is to allow as many residents as possible to obtain high-quality public services, regardless where they live.

It is worth reading a excerpt:

I will give you one last sampling of our differences to demonstrate how useless, if not extremely complex, it would be to set Canada-wide standards.

Quebec is the only province that has a drug plan. Quebeckers consume the least amount of cannabis. The morning-after pill is used less in Quebec than anywhere else in the country, and 8% of [elective abortions] were performed using that method here, while the rate is 31% in Ontario and 50% in British Columbia. Quebec is the place with the most psychologists per capita in North America. There are as many here as in the rest of Canada combined. Quebec has the lowest perinatal and neonatal mortality rate in Canada. In Quebec, only a pharmacist can own a pharmacy, which is a unique situation. And so on and so forth.

We have a different lifestyle, we have a different health status, and, since Marguerite Bourgeoys, we have our own health management model.

This quote demonstrates that it is unrealistic for the federal government to think it can create equity with Canada-wide standards. It is trying to make itself look good by saying it will impose a standard to ensure health equity, but it is just deluding itself. The needs are not the same everywhere. It is not that Quebec is better or worse; it is simply different. Each province has its own public health needs based on the residents it most urgently needs to care for.

Quebec also has different tools. There are local community service centres, known as CLSCs, and family medicine groups, known as GMFs. Quebec is also recognized for its expertise in setting up vaccination clinics. We are true leaders. We have developed tools that are different from other provinces', and we are proud of that. We know very well what we need to do and, more importantly, where we need to improve.

Having worked as a manager at the Montérégie-Ouest integrated health and social services centre, or CISSS, I can say that each manager is responsible for achieving certain indicators that are both well known and documented. From one region to another, these indicators are directly linked to the public health system's departmental guidelines.

The CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest's catchment area includes parts of four members' ridings, specifically the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle and the member for La Prairie. It is a large CISSS, and with that comes various challenges. I would like to talk about a few of the indicators that the department is asking us to observe and improve on.

The members on the government side make it sound like there are no standards at all, like it is complete chaos in the provinces. I would like my colleagues to know that the opposite is true. We have indicators, very specific standards and percentage targets. I will name a few, of which I am particularly proud.

One indicator that the CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest has as an objective is to improve access to addiction services. There is a broad departmental guideline regarding addiction, and my CISSS—I say “my” because it is still my CISSS—wants to improve access to addiction services. If we compare some data, we see that 10,717 people received addiction services in 2020. That number went down in 2021, when 9,743 people received those services. What happened? Some of the CISSS staff are studied the situation to find out why fewer people accessed addiction services than the year before. They looked into it, did some research and consulted with professionals. They realized that they need to serve people who may not be accustomed to bureaucracy, people who may not want to go to a hospital or a CLSC, but who want to be in contact with professionals who understand their lives and do not judge them.

That is why my CISSS got in touch with Pacte de rue, a community organization in my riding with outreach workers across the CISSS's territory. These workers connect with people where they are at, in their everyday lives and on the street. They work on the ground, not in offices. They realized that, if the organization had a street medicine service, they could increase the number of individuals accessing addiction services by going to people rather than waiting until people came to them.

I think that is a powerful example of a public network, our CISSS, working with a community organization in my riding. Through their co-operation and unique model, they are reaching people who might not otherwise receive public health care services. Now people who are homeless or have addictions may encounter an outreach worker who will take them to see a street medicine nurse. This is such a great model that it proves that these claims I am hearing, that there are no standards or indicators, are not true. Quebec's Department of Health requires my CISSS to adhere to broad guidelines for health, social services and public health and very specific indicators with measurable objectives. Every CISSS in Quebec has to do everything in its power to meet the goal.

The same thing happened with the new service that just opened, called Aire ouverte. Quebec wanted to improve access to services for children, youth and their families. We noticed that our statistics and indicators showed that there were clients who were not being reached as much, clients whose needs may not be as great, but who need help and services and do not seek them out. That is why Quebec created Aire ouverte, a program where health care workers meet with young people and no appointment is needed. These are clinics where no appointment is needed to easily access health care workers who will welcome young people and speak openly with them, without judgment, and refer to them to right services.

In closing, funding for the health care system is a critical issue. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a government that is playing games with this critical issue at patients' expense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would argue differently from what the member has said with regard to the issue of health care. This is a government that makes health care for all Canadians a high priority. It does that by reaching accords with the provinces and territories. It does that through historic amounts of federal dollars going toward provinces and territories for the financing of health care. It does that by recognizing our important health care issues, whether they are long-term care issues, mental health issues or issues related to dental care. These are all important issues that Canadians have, and I know, from my own constituents' perspectives, that constituents want the federal government to continue to play a role in health care.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide her thoughts and beliefs about the Canada Health Act and the expectation that Canadians have in general that the federal government—

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

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that interesting question. It gives me a chance to explain to him that health and education are also priorities of the Quebec government.

As far as health is concerned, the Government of Quebec is very clear about being able to identify its own problems and priorities. Quebec and British Columbia have more seniors that the other provinces; it is only natural that we are under more pressure when it comes to services for seniors. We know how to manage our services, but we would like the federal government to understand that the money that taxpayers pay should go back to the provinces that are experiencing the pressure that comes with service delivery.

What Quebec and the provinces are asking for is clear. They are asking the federal government to participate to the tune of 35%. That is a reasonable request because the needs are in the provinces and it is the provinces and Quebec that need to have the means to meet the needs of their citizens.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît on her speech,

I would like to hear her thoughts on the following. Yes, health is important, but it is healthy food that leads to good health.

Last week, I was in touch with with several food banks in my riding. To my great surprise, I learned that there has been a significant increase in the use of food banks, an increase of more than 25%. A third of clients who who use food banks are children.

In the current budget, I did not see much money to support food banks and to help children. What does my colleague think of that?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is very interesting.

Food drives are held in Quebec at this time of year. People collect food to help food banks and other organizations that provide food assistance. Previously, it was believed that a certain category of people needed help and went to food banks. Now, even working people need help and support as pressure and inflation are having a significant impact, especially on families.

That is why we know that communities need groups and organizations that are really in touch with their needs and provide the services they require. However, community groups need government support in order to provide services, but also to grow, to expand their reach and to withstand the pressure. That requires more funding.

Quebec's independent community organizations are asking for more funding from the Quebec government, which also must make difficult choices because it lacks the means to answer their call. Once again, one of the solutions is to give the provinces and Quebec what they are asking for, larger health transfers.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at report stage of Bill C-32 to talk a bit about the bill.

One of the really important measures contained in this bill is the Canada recovery dividend. We have talked a lot in this place about the impact of the pandemic on people and about the need for the government to have spent a considerable sum of money to support people as they contemplated losing their homes during the pandemic, particularly in those early days when the economy all but shut down and people were put out of work and were not sure how they were going to pay their bills. We have also talked a lot in this place about the amount of financial aid that was made available to large financial institutions like banks right at the outset of the pandemic. Indeed, we have talked about some of the knock-on effects in the economy of providing that liquidity, support and de-risking to major financial institutions.

The Canada recovery dividend is a one-time tax assessed on Canada's largest financial institutions for profits of over $1 billion during those early years of the pandemic. It is to be paid over five years and represents a considerable amount of revenue. It is something the New Democrats would have liked to see applied to big box stores, grocery stores and oil and gas companies, which also saw considerable profits during that period. By considerable profits, I do not just mean their normal considerable profits. I mean extra profit above and beyond the normal rate of profit that these companies enjoy.

While we would have liked to see that expanded and while we continue to ask and push for that, there is an important piece of work being done here, which is to assess the Canada recovery dividend, or what in other jurisdictions has been called a windfall tax, on Canada's financial institutions. It has not been done before, to my knowledge, in my own lifetime, so it is a really significant undertaking to go to the large financial institutions, which made a lot of money and benefited significantly from public funding during the pandemic, and say they need to pay their fair share.

Oftentimes, we talk about folks having to pay their fair share. The New Democrats talk about large companies having to pay their fair share. Rarely do we see actual instances of their being required to do it. This is what it looks like when they do it. While going ahead with this with respect to financial institutions is a positive thing, it also demonstrates the extent to which we are not requiring other large profitable companies to pay their fair share, because they are not mentioned in this legislation. They are not going to do it spontaneously. They are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are not going to just come around. The banks did not, but they will have to do it because it is legislated. It should be legislated for other sectors as well, but it matters that we are doing it for some sectors.

In addition to that, this legislation would permanently increase the corporate tax rate on those very same companies, including the big banks and life insurance companies, from 15% to 16.5%. That is also significant. That is what it means to make companies pay their fair share, and it is something too infrequently seen in this place. I note to anyone listening at home who has an outpouring of sympathy for these large institutions, although I doubt many are, that this is still far less than the large institutions paid in the year 2000, when they paid a 28% corporate tax rate. Going up to 16.5% for a small cross-section of corporate Canada, albeit a large, powerful and profitable cross-section, is hardly what we mean when we talk about tax fairness. It is at least, for the first time in over 20 years, a step in the right direction.

I am proud to be rising today to support that step in the right direction. I hope it is the first of many. I know if Canadians see fit to elect a New Democratic government, it will be. In the meantime, we will be here fighting the Liberals and dragging them kicking and screaming at every opportunity we get so they do the right thing and ensure that corporate Canada is paying its fair share. Canadians who want a sense of what that looks like need only look at this bill and see the progress we are making.

There are also some things in this bill that have to do with the housing market. Ultimately, they are a drop in the bucket because they are predicated upon the same ethos or philosophy that has been driving the housing market since the Liberal government of the mid-nineties first terminated the national housing strategy, which had a commodity-based and market-based approach to housing.

This is not because we ever had a time when there was not a housing market. There has always been a housing market in Canada, and rightly so, but we used to have a housing market in Canada that was about people being able to buy a family home and sell a home when it came time for them to downsize in retirement and have a bit of a nest egg. That was complemented by a parallel public housing sector that was meaningful, made real investments and built a significant number of units every year. That stopped in the mid-nineties, and we have never really gotten back to that.

Things that the New Democrats support, incidentally, such as a doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, will make a difference for certain families that are already financially well positioned to contemplate buying a house in this market. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the astronomical increase in the cost of housing. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the significant depreciation in their salaries against inflation and the prices of many things. These are things that will make a difference for some Canadians.

Some of these things the New Democrats have advocated for, such as the doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit and cracking down elsewhere, to the extent that the government has done so in this bill. We will see in time how effective that is and what the loopholes mean, but things like house flipping and other things are making it harder for Canadians to compete and get a first home. They are being outbid by people who have made a science of bidding on homes and flipping them and who are backed by access to a lot of capital that most Canadians do not have ready access to. Nevertheless, there are some measures that may help certain Canadians.

That is fine, but there is a lot more work to do to combat the idea that houses are commercial assets as opposed to homes. Significant government investments will be required to make that case and take the framework on so that we are building more social housing units for which rent is geared to income. Also, not unlike what I was just talking about with regard to assessing real taxes on the biggest corporate players in Canada, there is a lot of work to do in changing the regulatory environment so that big real estate investment trusts and other large corporate players in the housing market, which are pushing up prices and evicting low-income tenants, do not have a free hand to do that in the way they have.

That is what it will ultimately take for us to live in a country that has made a real decision about its values in respect of housing so that housing is not a simple market with a good like any other good in the market, but is a right for Canadian citizens. We have to design our housing market, including using non-market tools, to ensure that everybody has access to housing. This bill does not get us there, but it does tinker at the edges in ways that will be helpful for some people.

I want to talk a bit about what is not in the bill. The New Democrats are quite prepared to support this bill on the basis of some of the things that are significant and some of the things that tinker at the edges, albeit in helpful ways as opposed to harmful ways, but there is a lot that is not in the bill. I think particularly of employment insurance reform as the government begins to talk about a recession. We do not see any clues in this bill, just as we did not see any in the fall economic statement, about where the government is going on certain key policy decisions that have been made to get our employment insurance system up to where it needs to be.

I would note, while I have the opportunity, that one thing the government has decided to do, which we do not see in this bill but is on the books, is attribute $25 billion of debt, a big number, to the employment insurance account for the CERB and CRB payments that were made under the auspices of Service Canada, as opposed to the CRA. I have to say that whatever the government has in store for EI modernization clearly cannot involve any funding, because a $25-billion debt on the EI account means that we are going see maximum premium increases for the next seven years, with all of that money paying down CERB debt that should not be on the EI account. That was a general expense by the government in the context of a global emergency, and it should not be on the on the EI account. I am happy to talk more about that during questions and answers.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech. I represent a large riding, and many seniors reach out to me. They are worried. They do not understand what is going on. Some almost wish they were 74 years old so they could collect a decent pension.

Can my hon. colleague offer some solutions the government could act on, for once?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for her question. I think the solution is staring us in the face: The government should increase OAS for seniors 65 and up.

Seniors 65 and up grapple with the same financial pressure as those 75 and up. We know we are going through very tough economic times. Everyone is affected, so everyone should be entitled to a higher OAS benefit.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, why should we have any more faith, going forward, in the government with which he has chosen to partner? It cannot deliver on basic programs like passports. How can we ever do something complex like a housing program and things like that, which he so eloquently spoke of?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, in the last election, Canadians elected 338 MPs. It is true, when I look at the current government, I see a lot of reasons Canadians should not trust it and reasons they may think the government has failed them. I look across the way, and I do not see an adequate replacement. Therefore, I think the 338 of us are stuck trying to figure out how to move forward on certain policy items that are in the best interests of Canadians and that are going to make concrete improvements in their lives. I do not think an election is going to accomplish that.

If people would get serious, drop some of the rhetoric and, regardless of what party we belong to, look for ways we could move forward on good policy issues, that would make a positive difference in the lives of Canadians. I think if we spend more of our time doing that, Canadians would be far better served than by simply electing another government that would have its own problems.

There is inaction on climate change. We would not get anything better from them. There are tax breaks for big corporations. We would not get anything better from them. I could go on, but I will not. I am just going to focus on trying to get things done for people here.