Debates of Dec. 6th, 2022

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. parliamentary secretary.

I would remind everyone that debate is taking place and people should take their conversations into the lobby or the hallway. Inside the chamber, we all want to hear what the hon. parliamentary secretary has to say, and when the questions come, we will want to hear them as well.

The hon. parliamentary secretary can proceed.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the first time somebody has ever said that everyone wants to hear what I have to say. I certainly thank you for those kind words.

This bill is bringing in measures that are specifically designed to assist those most impacted by inflation right now. Most important is to look at the impact of the measures we are talking about in this bill in support of Canadians, those who need it the most. It is well documented that the impact of those measures on inflation is next to nothing.

I think it is very important that we reflect on exactly what some of those measures are. For starters, the one measure in this bill I am very happy to see, because I think it is long overdue, has to do with the elimination of student loan interest from the federal portion. I know it has been said in the House that we do not have a student loan problem. I would disagree with that. I suggest that is exactly the opposite of the truth because we do have a problem when it comes to education.

The reality is that decades ago, when my parents were in their teens and early twenties, all one needed to get a job that could provide security to build a family and buy a house was a high school diploma. By and large, one could find stable employment to provide for oneself and one's family. That is not the case any more.

Now, one needs much more than that. One quite often needs a university degree, to be highly skilled in a trade or, in some cases, have completed a masters or postgraduate work. The difference between now and then is that secondary school is covered through taxes. It is covered through property taxes and taxes that individuals pay to support the school system. To get to the point of being able to provide and start a family back then was free. Now we are in a situation where education is a lot more expensive. The cost of getting to that place of providing for and building a family is much more expensive.

When we start talking about things like eliminating the interest on student debt, I think it is absolutely important because it moves us toward being able to provide the education that people need to get stable employment. That employment can be used to build a family, buy a house and so on. From my perspective, we ultimately have to get to a point where either community college or university for Canadian citizens is almost as easy to access as high school is because it is through that that people can experience the quality of life that previous generations, like that of my parents, were able to experience.

I really think that this piece of legislation is absolutely key right now. We need to get this through the House. I am glad to see that we are at the final stage of this. The reality is that there are Canadians out there waiting on this legislation to be passed so they can start to get some of the supports in it. We know full well that the House could end up debating this fall economic statement until May or June, just like the Conservatives forced us to do with the last fall economic statement. We have had numerous speakers on this: 38 Conservatives, six NDP, 10 Bloc, one Green and 26 Liberals. After all these speakers, I cannot understand how anybody in the House would possibly think that continuing debate on this piece of legislation would be more important than getting the supports the legislation provides to Canadians.

I am glad to see that there is time allocation on this. We need to get to a point where we can have a vote on this. Let us have our voices heard through that vote, and if it passes, get the supports to Canadians. There are Canadians out there suffering right now who need these supports.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's review of the fall economic statement, Bill C-32, he categorized $14.2 billion as unannounced spending. I am just wondering if, before we go to actually vote on this bill, the member would tell us what the details of that spending are.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be completely honest. I am not fully versed in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, but I would say that every member of Parliament gets the information from the government at the exact same time.

The member assumes that I am going to somehow have access to that before him, but that would be against the rules of the House. I am allowed to see what is tabled when he is allowed to see it. He knows that. To suggest that there is some kind of information that I have that he does not have is simply not the truth.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has any comment on this as we debate Bill C-32. I understand his point that other members have spoken. It was almost getting to be like The Twelve Days of Christmas with how many members have spoken. I expected it to move into music. I ended up being the one Green who spoke.

There are other thoughts and comments that we would like to make, but we do not want to prolong debate unnecessarily.

The fundamental point is that we have rules and procedures in this place. We have time allocated for debate. If that is truncated on a routine basis continually, what does that mean for the future of this place as a place that is the heart of democracy, where debate takes place and where we do not truncate and bring down the bâillon every time?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the member brings up a very good point. It is unfortunately the reality of the place where we are now. It is an inevitable cycle. Conservatives are just using every single tactic they have, not only to slow down legislation that they are against, but also to slow down every piece of legislation of the government.

It is almost as though they want to force the government to use time allocation so they can say we are being undemocratic. The cycle continues so they can say that we did it 50 times, 60 times, 70 times and so on. Perhaps the member is on to something, in that we need to look at our Standing Orders and how we deal with this kind of stuff.

I will be completely honest. Before I got here, when I used to hear of Stephen Harper bringing in time allocation and terminating debate, I used to think it was an egregious thing to happen, until I realized, when I am sitting here, exactly how this place functions.

When Canadians actually figure out how this place functions, I know they will understand why it is necessary to do this and why it is necessary to end the games.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to get back into more of the substance of the debate. The member has mentioned the student relief and interest payments.

One of the things that we also see compounding is that students are graduating with fewer opportunities to be in a job for a longer period of time, with benefits and pensions. I wanted his thoughts about that. I see a lot of young people simply getting buried and falling behind, and that has caused significant problems for them starting families.

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

Madam Speaker, the member makes an excellent point.

Back in the sixties and seventies, one could graduate from high school in Kingston and go and work at DuPont or Alcan. One could have an entire career there, have a pension at the end and have benefits with that pension. The reality is that those jobs are becoming fewer and fewer.

We do not see the ability for individuals to have one job. I think that the average person now has seven or eight jobs throughout their employment time.

To answer his question, what is important now is that the government needs to recognize that the labour force has changed. We cannot rely on these companies to be providing these pensions and long-term strategies for retirement. It is becoming more onerous, quite frankly, for the government to provide those strategies and to make sure that people are prepared for their retirement because the opportunities this member mentioned, and that I mentioned at the beginning of answering the question, just do not exist anymore.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-32, the government's fall economic statement.

With inflation at record highs, interest rates rising and tax hikes on the way, Canadians are paying more attention to the government's spending now more than ever. They expect their government to be fiscally responsible with their tax dollars, and Canadians expect their government to make outcome-based investments and things that matter to them.

Unfortunately, since the Liberals took office in 2015, rural Canadians have been neglected by the government. I wish the government had spoken to rural Canadians and listened to their priorities and concerns before introducing the fall economic statement. Clearly, it failed to listen to rural Canadians.

Missing from the fiscal update is a plan to address rural crime. Rural crime is a pressing issue for Canadians who live in rural and remote regions. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has been silent on this issue.

Statistics Canada has reported that the crime rate in rural Canada has increased at a much higher rate than in urban Canada. The data shows that rural crime rates are 30% higher than in urban communities. Rural Canadians are vulnerable, and criminals are deliberately preying on the individuals and families in rural areas, knowing that the RCMP response times are highly delayed.

I spoke with a woman who lives just outside of the small community of Ethelbert, Manitoba last summer. She told me how her home was broken into multiple times in one year. Her home was invaded, her personal belongings were stolen and her safety was threatened. It took hours for the RCMP to respond, not because the police officers did not care but because they were so busy dealing with other responses.

Like many rural Canadians, the dream of living in a peaceful and tranquil region of our nation has turned into a reality of fear for one's safety. This is just one story, but I can assure members that nearly every Canadian who lives in rural Canada has, or heard, a similar one.

However, now the Liberals want to use the very limited policing services in rural Canada to implement their politically driven buyback program to confiscate legally acquired firearms. Even the provinces and territories are speaking out against this. New Brunswick, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Yukon oppose this wasteful use of police resources.

The provincial minister of public safety in New Brunswick said:

New Brunswick’s bottom line is this: RCMP resources are spread thin as it is...We have made it clear to the Government of Canada that we cannot condone any use of those limited resources, at all, in their planned buyback program.

The Liberals would rather use RCMP resources to enforce a firearm ban, which will do nothing to address rural crime, than use RCMP resources to protect the vulnerable families that live in rural Canada.

I should remind Canadians that violent crime has increased by 32% since the Prime Minister took office, and gang-related homicides have increased by 92%. Clearly, the Liberals' plan is not working. The Prime Minister has no plan to address the 30% higher crime rate in rural Canada, and that is very concerning.

The fiscal update did include new measures to support the victims of hurricane Fiona, and while I applaud the support, I want to raise an issue that was not addressed.

I was recently in P.E.I., meeting with Atlantic Canadians who feel neglected by their federal government, particularly the rural Canadians who feel their government is ignoring their needs.

Access to reliable, high-speed Internet and cellular service is critically important to rural Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When hurricane Fiona hit Atlantic Canada, cellular towers were down for days. The inadequate backup capacity on cellular infrastructure meant that Atlantic Canadians could not make a phone call in times of need.

Thousands of Atlantic Canadians waited weeks before they could reliably make a call on their cellphone. Imagine a single mother who does not know if she can contact local emergency services after a storm. Imagine seniors knowing they may not be able to call their loved ones in times of trouble.

While some cellular towers had backup generators, many did not have sufficient capacity and others had no redundancy at all. I found this very troubling. However, what I found even more troubling was the fact that this issue was raised by Atlantic Canadians to the Liberal government less than three years earlier after hurricane Dorian.

Atlantic Canadians called on the Liberals to address cellular redundancy in Canada, but their request fell on deaf ears. The Prime Minister failed to address cellular backup capacity in disaster-prone areas, and Canadians once again felt the impact of his neglect to this issue.

Even after the premier of Nova Scotia wrote to the Liberals urging them to address this issue, nothing was mentioned in the fall economic statement. Canadians deserve access to reliable cellular service.

If we want to connect Canadians with high-speed, reliable internet and cellular services, we need to increase competition in Canada. The only way to get lower prices and better service is to increase competition, enabling more innovation and choice.

Canada has among the highest, if not the highest, wireless prices in the world, according to a report by Rewheel/research. The minimum monthly price for a 4G smartphone plan that includes at least 20 gigabytes of data is higher in Canada than in Greece, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Germany, China, the United States, Finland, Sweden, Japan, Australia, Spain, the United Kingdom, India, Brazil and Italy, and the list goes on and on.

The Liberals think they can solve the problems with big government spending, but a lot of solutions emerge when we remove the government gatekeepers.

I think of Starlink, for example, a private company that provides internet through low earth orbit satellites. This is a company that is not reliant on government funding, that entered the Canadian market on its own, and has probably connected more rural and remote Canadians in one year than the government has since it took office. That is the power of innovation. That is the power of competition.

We should be encouraging private sector growth and innovation, not discouraging it.

Before I conclude, I want to point out one more thing. I noticed that there was a heading in the fall economic statement entitled “A Fair Tax System”. This reminded me of an encounter I had with a local taxi driver this year.

I was heading to the airport at four in the morning. A taxi driver had picked me up from my hotel and he told me he would only work for another two hours. I asked him why. He said that if he worked too much overtime, the increase in his tax rate would not make it worth his time. He would be working to put more money in the government’s coffers than in his own pocket. We should let that sink in.

Our tax system is discouraging Canadians from working. The government is discouraging seniors who want to top up their pensions. It is discouraging students who want to work for their tuition. It is discouraging parents who want to work a little extra to pay for Christmas presents. This is heartless and in no way a fair tax system. We should always be rewarding those Canadians who want to work.

Canadians are concerned with the rising cost of living. They are concerned with the irresponsible government spending. They are concerned with the neglect displayed by the government. They are concerned with what the future holds. I will continue to stand up for these Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative members always express concern with respect to the government spending. I do not know to what degree they recognize the true value of some of the spending that has taken place. We can talk about child care from coast to coast to coast. We have seen massive reductions for the first time with the national child care program. We have seen historic amounts of health care transfers to support provinces and address the needs of Canadians and their expectations on health care. In fact, we brought in a national dental program for children under the age of 12.

Would my colleague not recognize these are the types of programs on which Canadians expect their national government to deliver?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member talked about was spending. I will point to the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General found, “Employment and Social Development Canada established performance standards by focusing solely on the speed of payment”, and identified at least $32 billion in overpayments and suspicious payments that required further investigation. We are focused on that kind of spending.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the member a similar question I have asked other members. Given the context that, as we all know, some major corporations are making major profits, windfall taxes on corporations like Loblaws and oil companies need to happen, because the people he talked about are the ones who are suffering the most. Revenues from windfall taxes could go upward of $4.3 billion, if this kind of windfall tax was put on corporations like Loblaws and oil and gas companies.

Does the member agree these major corporations need to pay their fair share of taxes?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to taxes, it was one of our asks in this fall economic statement. We were looking for the Liberals to stop increasing taxes, in particular the carbon tax. Eliminating the carbon tax on home heating immediately would at least cut the costs for people to heat their homes, not sometime when we pass a bill, not sometime when we happen to get the House in order and not when we start to tax someone else. The government would immediately stop taxing Canadians who work so hard to heat their homes.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his excellent speech.

He talked a lot about rural areas across Canada. I wonder if he could elaborate on what he would have liked to see in this budget statement. I agree with him that there is not much in this statement for rural areas.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the one thing that really stood out to me was that it did not address Canada's needs at all, especially when it comes to rural crime. Today we talked about things that happened a long time ago and we said it should never happen again. In rural Canada, crime is 30% higher. There was not even a breath spent on that, not even on how we would address it or how we would take those sacred resources from the RCMP and apply them to rural Canada so we could look after rural Canadians. The government has totally blown up that whole idea.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

Earlier the member for Winnipeg North praised the government's actions in the area of health transfers with all kinds of conditions. Health care systems in Quebec and the provinces are in a critical state. Now is not the time to dither and try to set standards with absolutely no knowledge of exactly what they entail.

My colleague did not seem to respond as nervously as I did on this issue. I would like to hear his comments on this.

Why is the federal government so determined to impose standards for health transfers? Does my colleague agree that there should be no standards and that health transfers should be increased, as the provinces and Quebec have unanimously called for?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I did not answer the question about health care.

Health care squarely belongs in the realm of the provinces especially, but the key for the federal government to keep our country together is to work with the provinces, respect their power and work as a team. as a country, and not to divide us and take us in different directions. It needs to work as a true leader. A Conservative government will do that.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks with a short aside about Sainte‑Adèle, a municipality in my riding. On Friday, a terrible fire destroyed the Hôtel Mont Gabriel, which is a Laurentides—Labelle institution. The hotel has been perched on the summit of Mont Gabriel since 1936. I have a personal attachment to it because, in the 1960s, my father worked at Mont Gabriel to pay for his education. I want the staff and the general manager, Martin Lavallée, to know that I am with them as they confront this calamity, which has struck just days before Christmas.

Today, I am here to speak about Bill C‑32 at report stage. This bill seeks to implement the government's economic statement. Unfortunately, as we can see, it basically amounts to some minor legislative amendments. Quite frankly, I really feel that this is an attempt to implement the budget that was tabled a few months ago. I would like to elaborate on the economic reality that Quebeckers are facing. Bill C‑32 is backward-looking. It mentions inflation 108 times, but how much attention does the issue really get? The content of this bill is not anchored in the future or in the present.

I am trying to find ways to get us through these difficult times. Some examples of the challenges we face are skyrocketing grocery bills and the inability to fill our tanks with gas while we wait to buy an electric vehicle to get to work, because in the regions, a car is essential. Unfortunately, public transportation is not available everywhere. Donations to media food drives are also down because people are struggling.

The government has identified the cause of the higher cost of living, but it has done nothing about it. It has announced that there are difficult days ahead, which we obviously are aware of, without providing a way to get through them. Still, even though the measures in Bill C‑32 are not perfect, because there are shortcomings, we can say that we are relatively satisfied with the measures presented.

However, the government should have given more consideration to the Bloc Québécois's requests. They are simple and clear, and we know that they will be effective. We have proof. These measures can directly help Quebeckers. Our three requests were to increase health transfers, provide adequate support for those aged 65 and over, and urgently reform the EI system.

The Liberal government ignored our offer of help and rejected our proposals. This is a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers. I know Quebeckers are watching, and I want them to know that we will not give up. I must admit that there are some positive elements, however, and I will mention them today.

As we know, property flipping is really driving up prices on the housing market and making it very difficult to buy a home, particularly for first-time buyers. I commend the federal government on its initiative to tax gains from property flips. I hope that will help curb real estate speculation and make it easier for people to buy a home.

Another related measure that I welcome is the creation of the tax-free first home savings account. I talked about it with my older daughter and her friends, and they say that it will definitely help them.

That measure was in the spring budget. Things have changed, and we had to adjust.

Bill C-32 is not perfect. However, we are happy to see the provision that amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on student loans as of April 1, 2023, and the provision that seeks to phase out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities. Obviously, we welcome that.

The pandemic made it clear just how much desperately the Quebec health care system needs help. As we speak, the three emergency rooms in the Laurentides—Labelle area are alarmingly overcrowded. I have to say it. The occupancy rate in the small municipality of Rivière‑Rouge is 80%. It is 167% in Sainte‑Agathe‑des‑Monts and 240% in Mont‑Laurier. The holidays have not even begun yet. The numbers speak for themselves. We need those transfers, and we will not give up.

In my riding, the holidays also herald the arrival of vacationers and, potentially, higher demand on our emergency services. It seems the government is trying to divide and conquer. It has been aware of this request, which has been made repeatedly, for quite some time. I get the impression it is trying to wear us down, but at what cost? Unfortunately, there may be accidents on ski hills this winter. Where are people supposed to go? There is no more room.

To take care of our people, we need our money to be transferred to our province and the other provinces. Quebec's health care system needs the means to care for Quebeckers. My sense is that the federal government is more interested in politicking. Enough is enough. I am not looking forward to rising in the House again this winter with updated occupancy rates.

Unfortunately, when Canada's health ministers met in Vancouver in November, the Liberal Party's attitude was just as condescending and disdainful as ever when it comes to provincial jurisdiction. I do not appreciate that at all. ER doctors are telling us that ERs are at a breaking point. The federal government has our money, but it is not doing anything.

The Bloc Québécois is defending the united position of Quebec and the provinces, and we are asking that the health transfers be increased from 22% to 35%. Unfortunately, taking care of people does not seem to be the Liberals' number one priority. In health care, the results are not there when it comes to ensuring the dignity of seniors with sufficient quality of life and financial support.

At the start of the pandemic, I had the opportunity to ask the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Poloz, some questions. He appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, which was studying the COVID-19 emergency measures. When we spoke about EI as an economic stabilizer, he mentioned that it was important. We took action. In the current context, I am wondering why we cannot use what worked in the past to deal with what we are going through now. There are proposals on the table, and we will vote in favour of this update even though there are a number of things missing.

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

Madam Speaker, there was a time when the provinces and Ottawa got together on health care and the provinces would say they did not want more cash; they wanted a tax point transfer. They got a tax point transfer as opposed to receiving cash. That took out billions of federal dollars going to the provinces. Now we hear the Bloc saying that Ottawa should be nothing more than an ATM machine, and that when the provinces want cash, we should just give them cash. That does not recognize the history of what has taken place.

Does the member believe that Ottawa should never have given the tax point transfer, and that instead of giving the tax point transfer, it should have stuck strictly to giving cash?

Second, does the member not recognize that there is an obligation for the Government of Canada, through the Canada Health Act, to provide health care services, something I personally believe in?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

However, for the people watching, I would like to point out that decades ago, 50% of the tax dollars collected by Ottawa were transferred for health care. There was never any question as to whether the provinces were able to deliver services. No, the fact of the matter was that Ottawa trusted them and it had other things to manage.

The day that this government can demonstrate that it is properly managing what it is supposed to manage, we will stop saying that we need health transfers. Let the provinces do what they are good at in health care.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle for her presentation.

I just have one question. She talked a lot about her riding. I assume that, like me, she saw very little in the way of improvements to telecommunications and the cellular network. In my opinion, concrete action is needed to improve the cellular network as a matter of public safety.

Could the member share her thoughts on that?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is just a rehash of the budget, but it took a pandemic for the government to say that high-speed Internet is an essential service.

Now, when we talk about public safety, the government points out that there is broadband, but if there is no electricity, what will our providers or people who live in more remote areas without cellphone coverage do? Again, we will have to wait months for the government to say that it is an essential service.

That is one of the shortcomings of the economic statement.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the great Canadian economist Jim Stanford just published a report through the Centre for Future Work, and he found the following:

...15 sectors...were...the source of the fastest price increases experienced in Canada since 2021. Products like gasoline, groceries, mortgage interest, home energy products, and building materials have led the acceleration of inflation—and those higher prices flow directly into the record profits recorded in those 15 sectors. Large price increases for just 8 specific products sold by those super-profitable sectors account for over half of the rise in Canadian prices in the latest 12-month period; without those 8 products, overall Canadian inflation would be one-third lower.

Does my hon. colleague agree with the NDP that unless we attack the record profits and excess profits made by these corporate sectors, we are not going to get a handle on inflation in this country?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am not a tax expert or an economist, but what I do know is that we need to listen to scientists, to those who are recommending measures to offset this inflation. We saw it with the key rate, which continues to rise, even though inflation is still very high. Nevertheless, I rely on science and everything that will be proven to help us deal with what is coming. We all know that winter is going to be difficult, both in terms of our health and our finances.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to represent the people of London—Fanshawe and to speak to Bill C-32 today.

There are a lot of issues that have been raised in this bill that we have been talking about for a long time. We have been fighting for Londoners, of course, but fighting for a fairer economy and bringing that voice into this place.

There are a lot of pieces of this bill that we think are a good start and reasons we support this bill, but as usual there is a lot lacking. As a New Democrat, I work, I push and I continue to fight for so much more for the people of London—Fanshawe. One of the key points is that we are supporting the removal of the federal portion of interest on student loans. That could make a real difference for students.

I was formerly the post-secondary critic for the NDP in this place, and we fought for so much more. We called for the cancellation of up to $20,000 of federal debt per student and a break from that repayment. We made it retroactive. We talked about going even further. Ultimately, the government is making money off the backs of our future, off those who will contribute to our economy in so many ways through the education system, and that is very short-sighted. We could go so much further, but it is a good start.

On the windfall tax, we support some of these measures, but the government could do much more if it had the political courage to go further. Big banks, big box stores and oil and gas companies have made record profits from COVID.

If we had raised that proposed 15% and made it permanent, we would see an extra $4.3 billion in the federal coffers. We could reinvest that in people and in social programs that establish the solidity that people need. The equity that people can get from social programs is the role of government, not to play catch-up to big corporations that are at the very top.

We have concerns with this bill, because it does not go far enough. As New Democrats, we were fighting in the last Parliament to deliver supports under the CERB and the wage subsidy to handle and to deal with what people were facing with COVID-19. When the government provided those supports and said it had people's backs, people needed that and they believed it.

Now we see the government clawing that back. It is clawing back the benefits that people applied for in good faith. There are people I know, who come to my constituency office, and do not know where to turn. They count on the government to provide fairness and support, and they are not seeing that.

I was here a few weeks ago with my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I am always awed by his ability to give a speech in this place, off the cuff. He has so much knowledge within.

Something he was talking about really stuck with me. It was the need for respect and the call for the respect that people deserve. They work so hard, play by the rules, do everything they are supposed to and do everything the government asks of them. They are paying their fair share in taxes, yet when they need the government to help them, it is not there. They become frustrated and angry. They do not know where to turn.

It is that need to show respect that is a piece of the tax fairness we talk about. The government has to find the right balance to show that respect to Canadians. It has to have the courage to ask those who make the most in this world to redistribute those excess profits and to not take advantage of people who are just trying to get by and who are just trying to feed their families. They need to pay their fair share.

I am so happy to see that my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has championed this issue and has received unanimous support to investigate the greedflation from grocery stores that we talk about, at the agriculture committee. However, it is clear that the $1 million a day that Loblaws makes in profits, because it is taking advantage of people, is driving inflation. It has to be a part of that fair taxation.

According to the new study released by the Centre for Future Work, 15 profitable industries, including the grocery sector, are driving inflation in Canada. The combined profits of these 15 sectors are up by a whopping 89%. Nobody's salaries are up by 89%. People feel that, and they see that unfairness. They are asking for solutions from the government.

The windfall tax that we have been calling for on excess profit could go so far in systems that are now in crisis. That is because of underfunding and government cuts and because of downloading of responsibilities from the federal to the provincial government and from the provincial to municipal governments.

We are seeing that in our health care system. In my hometown of London, Ontario, hospitals have seen a surge, like so many across this country, especially in the children's hospital. Patients are waiting up to 20 hours for service.

I cannot imagine being a parent and watching my child suffer. It is one thing for parents to take that on themselves and try to deal with it, but they have to watch their child go through that, to suffer in a hallway, to wait and then to be told to go home. Surgeries are being cancelled in London, because they cannot deal with the influx of patients. People take their kid home and they are suffering. I cannot imagine what that has done to families.

Now people in London are, in an innovative way, trying to deal with those long wait times in emergency rooms. London Health Sciences Centre is trying to change how it structures its emergency room policies. It is trying to create a separate emergency room system for those dealing with mental health crises and addiction crises. It is trying to make something work.

The Doug Ford Conservative provincial government said that it is not going to fund it, and that the city needs to take the burden of that cost. It is $300 million on a city in Ontario that cannot carry a deficit, and it has to somehow figure out how to service the people in our municipality and not overburden the taxpayers.

One of the things regarding inflation that we have heard is that the government is at fault and it is overspending. Conservatives have a very simplistic view that it is just about taxes. We know that is not true. The Conservatives will not accept the fact that, even though there are studies about it now, including the one that I just referenced, this could potentially be about greed.

I will come back to the point that the member for Elmwood—Transcona was making about respect. Instead of continuing to protect big corporations, if we could implement true tax reform to make these companies that are making massive excess profits pay their fair share and to hold those wealthy friends accountable, then that would be respect. That would be showing the Canadian public that we are willing to do the work, and that we have the courage to stand up to ensure they have that fairness and they see that fairness.

One of the problems that I also see is regarding the Bank of Canada and its continuous pursuit to hit that 2% target, yet in that lies the potential of a recession. If it hits that 2% target, it could risk 850,000 jobs. There are already people desperately trying to make ends meet, and now they have to worry about losing their job and figuring that out.

London has such a proud manufacturing history. There are McCormick, Dr. Oetker, Labatt, Indiva in my riding and Environize. There is a place called the Cakery. There are so many places and I wish—