Debates of March 21st, 2022

Opposition Motion—Cost of Living

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I truly believe that every member of Parliament is here for similar reasons. We want to do right by our community and we all have an overall goal of leaving Canada a better place than when we found it. I have always told people in my riding that the politics come into play because we have different ideas on how to achieve those very same ends.

In the present climate in Canada, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are really suffering. There is a lot of struggle out there. This is one of those moments in time when they are really crying out for bold policy. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament to ask themselves why they are here and if they are actually making a difference in people's lives.

I acknowledge that the motion before the House today, the motion brought forward by the New Democratic Party of Canada, is non-binding on the government. What it does do is send a powerful message because if the House were to vote in favour of this motion it would send a signal to the cabinet. It would send a signal that most of the MPs in this place, representing the majority of Canadians, want to see a shift in government policy to level the playing field and to address the very real concerns of Canadians.

What are we asking the government to do? We are essentially asking it to commit to a campaign promise and commit to a promise that was made in its budget. Excuse me if I sound a bit jaded. They sound like pretty simple things. However, I have been a member of the House since 2015, and I have a lot of unfortunate experience with Liberal promises that were left by the wayside.

It is a government that once promised electoral reform and cynically left it in the dust. It is a government that has promised sincere action on climate change, yet invested billions of public taxpayer dollars into a pipeline. Imagine investing in fossil fuel infrastructure in this day and age when all of the evidence of climate change surrounds us every day. What kind of a message is that sending to our children?

By every metric, whether looking at housing, at fuel, at the cost of food or at wealth inequality, there are multiple failures to be found. I acknowledge that my friends on the Liberal side are, in their way, trying to bring policy to address some of those core concerns. I will acknowledge that. However, if we look at the evidence on the ground we see that they are failing. They are not properly addressing those very real concerns that Canadians have.

In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, in one year we saw housing prices go up anywhere from 30% to 40%. That is simply unsustainable. When I have families in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, families with two incomes earning six figures, who are put on the street or given notice because the landlord sold their property to take advantage of the skyrocketing housing costs and, with their income level, they cannot find a place to rent, that is a real problem. That is an indictment on the current federal government's housing policy. The market is failing Canadians and, therefore, we must find non-market solutions to address this housing crisis.

Regarding fuel prices, I acknowledge that is something out of our control. There is a war going on in Ukraine and oil is one of the most volatile energy sources on earth. It always will be. It always has been. However, when we see price increases in my riding going up to over two dollars a litre last week, that puts a real strain on family budgets. It increases the cost of everything, from building materials to the cost of food, pretty much everything that is transported by rail or by truck. Families need a break.

If we look at wealth inequality, over the last two years we see Canadian families who have been having to deal with so much. We see that the richest people in Canada have increased their wealth by billions of dollars. That is not fair.

Therefore, what are we asking the government to do with its promises that were made in the campaign and in the budget?

We are proposing that it add a 3% surtax on banks and insurance companies with profits of over $1 billion. Just so that is clear for the residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, a company will have had to have made a profit of $1 billion before the tax would apply. It is simply not right when we have families struggling with the basic necessities of life to be seeing those record profits being made and they are at the other end. We are simply asking that we honour those promises, that we tax extreme wealth at the high end and that we reinvest that money into our communities, reinvest it into working families and reinvest it to make our communities resilient.

I have listened to some of the debate today and Conservatives talk about addressing inflation through building more pipelines, giving a GST holiday to fuel or getting rid of the carbon tax. In my view, that is extremely short-sighted policy because it does nothing to address the inflationary pressures of climate change. It also ignores the fact that oil and gas are, as I said before, our most volatile energy sources.

Speaking of the volatility of that as a fuel source, the inflationary pressures that will come to us from climate change are going to be measured in the trillions of dollars. If we think that fuel prices now are high, imagine what is going to happen when we have conflicts arising around the world because of the scarcity of water resources or the fact that agriculture has been devastated or that coastal cities are inundated because of rising flood waters. These have real economic costs. Forget the ecological argument; listen to the economic argument. How many future tax dollars are we prepared to spend to address these issues?

We know they are going to drive up costs. To suggest in the House that we should build more pipelines and that we should have some kind of small short-sighted tax holiday is completely ignoring what the costs will be if we continue to use fossil fuels and continue to let climate change go on a runaway course.

In the reinvestment in our communities, I will say what I would do in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I have a few areas where that money could be reinvested, the opioids crisis for one. I have too many residents on the streets of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford who are playing Russian roulette with their lives every time they buy toxic street drugs. We have a massive housing crisis. We need to reinvest those funds to make sure that people have the right to housing established clearly, and we need the government to step in and build those non-market units.

As for pharmacare and dental care, if we want to help working families, why do we not help them with the unexpected budgetary costs they have with dental bills and pharmacare bills? However, when we have given the House the opportunity to vote on those measures, talking about coalitions here, what about the Liberal-Conservative coalition? They combined have voted against dental care. They voted against a wealth tax. They voted against pharmacare, all measures that are designed to help working families. Words are cheap, but luckily this place keeps the receipts. It is noted in Hansard and in the way both those parties have voted. I want to make that very clear.

We could also invest in bigger health transfers. I know my Bloc colleagues have talked repeatedly about provincial demands for more federal health transfers, and I know that has been a demand of all provinces. Surely the last two years have shown us how strained our health care systems have been. This is a real opportunity for us to reinvest those excess profits to build a system we can all be proud of, the system we know we can have in Canada where no one is left behind, to honour the vision of the people who built it in the first place.

I will end by saying that I hope all of my colleagues in the House will find it in themselves to vote for this motion and to signal to the people of Canada that they are serious about enacting the bold policies that we need.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of sitting beside my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on the flight last night and talking about one part of the motion, which is the creation of a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry. In the budget last year, we provided funding to set up a beneficial ownership registry for federally incorporated companies. In our platform this past election, we campaigned on a homebuyers' bill of rights to have such a registry for property. Unfortunately, provincially regulated companies would not be covered by that, and land ownership is provincially regulated.

I was wondering if the member could speak a bit more on the third part of that motion, on creating a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry, if that is for property or for companies, and what he sees as the federal government's role in working with the provinces so they adopt similar measures.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, as my friend is a fellow British Columbian, he would know our provincial NDP government has enacted such a policy. It does cover the area of provincial jurisdiction, so I would like to see the federal government move ahead with this.

I referenced promises that were made. One of my colleagues, earlier in an intervention, and I believe it was the member for Victoria, pointed out that key promise was missing from the mandate letters of two ministers. I would encourage the member to speak to the ministers to ensure it is still on the table, because it is something we very much want to see the federal government move ahead on to establish that transparency within the areas it has clear jurisdiction over.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague did lament the fact that somehow some of the parties in the House are not supporting NDP motions or initiatives. The problem is that, whenever the NDP brings forward a motion, it always has poison pills in it that force us, as Conservatives, to vote against these motions. For example, on this motion we are debating today, I believe there is a consensus in the House to support a beneficial ownership registry. We all support that. However, of course the NDP plugs in taxes and more taxes that all trickle down to the consumer.

I am going to ask my colleague from British Columbia why it is that the NDP has this proclivity to undermine its own policy initiatives by adding things it knows we will not and cannot support. It seems counterintuitive that if it wants something to come through that it would do that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find it quite funny that Conservatives would regard a tax on profits of over $1 billion to be a “poison pill”. I would love for the Conservative candidate in the next election in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to explain to voters how that is a poison pill.

The argument that companies are just going to simply pass these on to consumers is simplistic and does not reflect reality. Conservatives need to ask themselves why they continuously vote against measures that are trying to level the playing field and ensure that working families can get ahead.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from British Columbia on his speech. I acknowledge the high calibre of his work and the soundness of his comments.

It is said that a nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members. Personally, I do not disagree with a 3% surtax.

However, the NDP's general comments about the “super-rich” bother me. I realize that they do exist, but when I hear this term, I feel it is an insult to some. Is this an ideological or an economic term?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will point my colleague to what we laid out in our platform. What it really came down to was a 1% tax on fortunes of over $10 million. If one is wealthy enough to own $10 million, that 1% tax on any wealth over and above that, we feel, is a small price to pay and one that is very affordable to people who are in that category. Having that money to reinvest in communities would make a massive difference to working families in my riding and I believe his as well.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on the NDP opposition motion today. It is also a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon. It is great to be back in Parliament and doing the work our constituents sent us here to do. It is always a privilege and honour to represent the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge. The great folks in my riding are entrepreneurial, hard-working and quite passionate.

I would like to add that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful friend and colleague for the amazing riding of Davenport in downtown Toronto.

We speak about affordability, strengthening our middle class and helping those who are working very hard to join the middle class. Our government, since 2015, has put forward a number of measures that continue to pay dividends today. The first thing we did when we assumed power in 2015 was cut taxes for middle-class Canadians. It was literally billions of dollars a year, and in over six years we have probably returned over $20 billion in tax savings to hard-working middle-class Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We also increased taxes on those Canadians who are in the top 1%. This is something that was the right thing to do, and it showed our efforts to make sure that everyone paid their fair share. We also closed tax loopholes. As a finance committee member for my first five years in Parliament, I was very proud to work in that area.

The Liberal government has continued to cut taxes for Canadians. I put forward an idea in our 2019 platform that called for the lifting of the basic personal exemption amount, to expeditiously keep it for middle-class Canadians and not give it to the wealthiest Canadians. That is exactly what we did. It is a great policy, with literally billions of dollars in tax cuts. When it is fully phased in, the first $15,000 of what every Canadian makes would not be taxed at the federal level. I believe that would be fully phased in next year, in 2023.

Again, we are taking necessary steps to help put more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. This is something I believe in and something that our government believes in. At the same time, we are investing in Canadians. We have the Canada child benefit, which in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge benefits nearly 20,000 kids. It is over $60 million a year, from the last estimate we got, that goes directly into the pockets of hard-working families. It is tax-free and monthly. It is not sent to millionaires. It is sent to hard-working Canadians in my riding and from coast to coast to coast.

We enhanced the Canada pension plan. This is something we worked together with the provinces on, and rightly so, to help Canadians so they could ensure their retirement. We know defined benefit pension plans are fading in the private sector quite quickly. We know that Canadians need to have a secure and dignified retirement. That is why we have undertaken a plethora of measures to help Canadians in their retirement. We made some commitments in our 2021 platform that we will be fulfilling. It is great to see our government continuing to aid seniors.

One thing I am very excited about, and I know that over three million seniors are very excited about in Canada, including many thousands in my riding, is that effective this July, old age security will be increasing by 10%. That is nearly $800 a year in the pockets of seniors. That is something that would assist them, especially with affordability.

With regard to today's opposition motion, we know affordability is of paramount concern to all families. I have three children at home. We go grocery shopping literally almost every day. We know what the cost of formula is, and we know what the costs of cereal and other necessities are for our kids and what they like to eat. Prices are elevated. Prices are higher. We all know that. We know it is having a real impact on the lives of many people in Canada.

We know high inflation is also a global phenomenon. Rising prices are the result of unprecedented challenges in reopening the global economy. We have talked about the supply chain and its impacts. We could look at what the shortage of chips, which are used in almost every product in the world, has limited. It has limited vehicle production, and it is impacting used vehicle prices. It is something we need to be very aware of.

That is why, as a government, we are not standing idly by. We are focused on supporting families and, again, growing and strengthening the middle class, which is the heart of the Canadian economy, and on improving the standard of living for Canadians.

We are taking real action to support Canadian families and making life more affordable for them. This includes historic investments in early learning and child care. Because I am an economist, early learning and child care excites me. It increases the productive capacity of our economy. It is a supply side measure. That improves the standard of living for Canadians and makes our economy more productive. I am very happy to see that nine out of 10 provinces, and all of the territories if I am not mistaken, have signed on to agreements.

I look forward to seeing, fingers crossed, an announcement between the federal government and the Province of Ontario on a child care deal sooner rather than later. My wife and I are putting our young daughter Leia in child care in September or October, so hopefully we will have that child care agreement in place. We know that it is the right thing to do. The $10-a-day regulated child care spaces for children under six years old are a nearly $30-billion investment over five years to help reduce child care costs across Canada. We have signed agreements with all of the provinces except Ontario, and we are working hard to help Ontario families like the ones in my region of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

For those of my colleagues who may not know, child care costs in York Region are among the highest, if not the highest, in the country. I am one of 10 members from that area. We need this deal. This will literally save families thousands of dollars a year in after-tax money. This is not before tax, but after tax. Finance folks should think about the before-tax costs of child care when paying $1,500 to $2,000 a month for a child. It is quite expensive.

The Canadian and Quebec governments have also signed an asymmetrical agreement to strengthen the early learning and child care system in that province, a system that already provides affordable services. Access to quality, affordable child care is not only an important economic policy, it is also a major social policy. It makes life more affordable for families with children. It enables mothers and fathers to work, increasing the workforce.

It creates more labour force participation. That is a great thing for the economy.

It also creates good, well-paying jobs for educators. It will give kids the best possible start in life.

The Canada child benefit is another key part of our efforts to make life more affordable for Canadian families. This program helps 3.5 million families with children every year and puts more money into the pockets of nine in 10 Canadian families, compared to previous child benefit programs. The Canada child benefit has already lifted 435,000 children out of poverty. Payments are indexed yearly to keep up with the rising cost of living.

We realize that COVID‑19 has made life harder for Canadian families, which is why, in 2021, the families that are eligible for the Canada child benefit received up to $1,200 extra during the pandemic for each child under the age of six. This was our way of directly giving more money back to Canadian families to help them deal with pandemic pressures.

The government has also introduced a number of measures to help those who need it the most, some of which complement existing protection. Seniors, as I said at the beginning, will get a 10% increase in old age security payments starting in July for those aged 75 and older. That is almost $800 more for pensioners over the first year. We have to remember that old age security is indexed. That is wonderful. It is great to see, and it will help the 3.3 million seniors who will receive this 10% increase. This is the first permanent increase in old age security since 1973.

I want to mention housing. The city of Vaughan in my riding, which is where I live, has the largest housing developers in the country. We are home to housing and infrastructure. There are so many builders in my riding that I think they control nearly the entire housing market in Ontario. I interact with them all the time. We need to get housing supply built. We need more homes for Canadians. These participants, the developers, builders or however we refer to them, are ready. They have the resources. They want to get the zoning bylaws passed more quickly and get the regulations reduced so that they can build more housing for Ontarians and all Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I asked a question earlier about gas prices and I did not really get a good answer from the government.

I want to understand just whether the government thinks gas prices in an ideal world would be higher, lower or at the same level. I thought that one of the intentions of the government's policy around the carbon tax, around imposing a tax on things that produce carbon, was to intentionally increase the price of gas. I know that the member will tell me that we rebate portions of it. He might even say all of it, but that does not really answer the core question.

I would like to know this. Does the government wish to see gas prices be higher, lower or at the same level they are now?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I would say is that WTI and WCS refinery margins are not controlled by the government. There is a market for that.

We obviously want to see Canadian energy used as much as possible. We want to see Canadian energy exported as much as possible. I think we earn about $200 billion Canadian a year from energy exports. Over 800,000 people are employed in the energy industry here in Canada. I am proud of those workers who go to work every day and work in that resource industry. It is going to be part of our future for years to come.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, Charlevoix is a major tourist area, and all the tourism companies are looking for workers right now. Charlevoix sometimes relies on immigrants or students to fill labour shortages, but there are fewer and fewer of them around. Companies cannot find enough workers to replace those who are retiring.

Retired workers are willing to keep working, but they have no incentive to do so. The situation is urgent. Does my colleague agree that, in this act and in future decisions, the government should immediately guarantee sufficiently significant incentives to persuade seniors who would like to return to work to do so?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I visited Quebec City over the weekend.

I know how important tourism is to all of Canada, and especially to the province of Quebec.

I agree.

We should look at measures that entice and that keep folks from exiting the labour market across the country. We did something in the budget by raising the guaranteed income supplement earnings exemptions so seniors could keep more of their hard-earned dollars as they stayed in the labour force.

Any measure that increases labour supply and the productive capacity of the Canadian economy should always be examined. I know, for my part as an economist, that I always take a look at those types of measures because they improve the standard of living for all Canadians and they help provinces such as Quebec fulfill their labour needs. We know that, in Canada, we have a great economy and a strong economy, and we need more workers.

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

Madam Speaker, near the end of my hon. colleague's speech, he touched on a point that I think is extremely important. He mentioned the development capacity in Vaughan—Woodbridge and working to actually expedite and move forward with development agreements at the municipal level.

I think we would all agree in the House that housing is a complex challenge. It is actually going to involve all three levels of government, the private sector and the non-profit sector.

What would the member say about the role of municipalities working closely with developers, not necessarily to completely steamroll the process, but to make sure there are efficiencies so that those additional costs and that red tape is not then passed on to homeowners? That could be resulting in some of the prices we are seeing today.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, where there are overlapping regulations in place, where there are access-to-development charges put in place, where there is red tape to put shovels in the ground, we must always look at eliminating those, with the caveat of ensuring safety and protection for all standards that are put in place. We need to do that in Ontario. I think the estimate is that we need 1.5 million houses to be built.

Houses are not just houses. They are homes for Canadians and for our families, and they are where we create our memories. We need to put the shovels in the ground to actually build them. We need all levels of government working co-operatively together, and we also need to eliminate layers where we possibly can.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Davenport, whom I am so proud to represent, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate on the opposition day motion put forward by the leader of the NDP on tax cuts and fairness. It is indeed a rare pleasure to debate a motion that is supportive of our federal government's platform commitment to reduce taxes for middle-class Canadians while raising them on the wealthiest.

I should begin by thanking the hon. member for Burnaby South for his support. It is my sincere hope that this partnership toward a fair tax system for all Canadians remains long and productive.

As the hon. member knows, and indeed all members of the House know, one of our key priorities when we were first elected in late 2015 was to reduce taxes for middle-class Canadians while raising them on the wealthiest 1%. We have delivered on that commitment in real terms. We have also increased support for fairness and for low-income workers through programs such as the Canada child benefit and the Canada workers benefit, which have helped lift over one million Canadians out of poverty since 2015, including 435,000 children.

We have also increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit for low-income, single seniors and enhanced the GIS earnings exemption, and are increasing old age security for Canadians aged 75 and older beginning in July of this year. Moreover, we have increased the basic personal amount that Canadians can earn before paying any federal income tax. To ensure that this support is targeted at the middle class, the benefits of the increased basic personal amount are phased out for high-income taxpayers. When this measure is fully implemented next year, single individuals will pay $300 less in tax each year and families will pay $600 less, which will be a huge savings for both families and individuals.

In addition to these new tax breaks for Canadians and Canadian workers, our federal government has also targeted new tax relief this year to businesses that are doing their part to create jobs and growth by investing in a better future for all Canadians. For example, as more countries commit to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, the demand for zero-emissions technology will only grow. To create jobs and support the growth of clean technology manufacturing in Canada, budget 2021 proposed to reduce by half the general, corporate and small business income tax rates for businesses that manufacture zero-emissions technologies. This tax cut applied as of January 1, 2022.

What is more, we are not just providing tax breaks to innovative businesses that are doing their part to protect the environment this year. We are also helping the many small businesses that are doing their part in fighting COVID. Small businesses understand that proper ventilation makes indoor air healthier and safer, helping to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Many want to make further improvements to their indoor air quality to protect their workers and customers, but they have been finding that investing in equipment to improve ventilation can be costly. That is why our federal government has proposed a temporary, refundable small business air quality improvement tax credit of 25% on eligible air quality improvement expenses incurred by small businesses. Businesses would receive the credit on eligible expenses incurred between September 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, up to a maximum of $10,000 per location and $50,000 in total. That is not just good for their businesses; it is also good for the health and safety of Canadians.

As members can see, where our government delivers tax cuts to businesses, it is doing so strictly with a view to encouraging the sort of investments that support Canadians and their highest priorities. At the same time, we are ensuring that taxes are appropriate and fair and discourage the sort of activities that are not helpful to Canadians.

A prime example of this is our proposed tax on non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate that is considered to be vacant or underused. This tax would become effective as of January 1, 2022. While this tax would not be paid by individual Canadian homeowners, it would certainly benefit Canadians. That is because the recent and rapid rise in housing prices has made finding an affordable place to call home increasingly difficult, and the underused housing tax would help support investments in housing affordability so that all Canadians can have a safe and affordable place to call home.

Another important example of how our government is ensuring that Canadians do not have to bear the burden of other decisions is the price that we have put on carbon pollution in Canada. The fact is that climate change presents a threat to our long-term health and economic prosperity, and putting a price on carbon pollution is the most effective policy to address it. Fortunately, our federal government, along with the hon. member for Burnaby South and many other members of this House, understands this, as do most Canadians and provincial governments. That is why we have recently confirmed our plan to increase the carbon price through to 2030.

At the same time, we will continue to return the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system to the province or territory of origin. In jurisdictions that do not have their own fuel charge consistent with the federal benchmark criteria, and that would be Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, approximately 90% of the direct proceeds from the fuel charge are returned to residents of those provinces through the climate action incentive payments.

As a result, in most households these climate action incentive payments actually represent more than the increased cost they face from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. What is more is that the remaining fuel charge proceeds, about 10%, are used to support small businesses, farmers, indigenous groups and other organizations. Not one dollar stays with the federal government, and going forward, the federal carbon price will continue to be revenue neutral for the Government of Canada.

Our federal government is also well aware that even as Canadians have sacrificed to keep our economy going through the pandemic, some of the wealthiest have done very well for themselves. We have already taken action on the understanding that those who can afford to buy luxury goods can afford to pay a bit more. To that end, our federal government is following through on its commitment to introduce a tax on select luxury goods.

In budget 2021, we proposed the introduction of a tax on the sale of new luxury cars and aircraft with a retail sale price over $100,000 and on boats priced over $250,000. This tax would be calculated at the lesser of 20% of the value above these price thresholds or 10% of the full value of the luxury vehicle, aircraft or vessel.

To implement this, recently at committee on March 11, 2022, we released draft legislative proposals for public comment. These draft legislative proposals reflect and respond to input received during consultations with the stakeholders. With the support of our partners in the House who share our goal of a fair tax system, this tax would come into effect on September 1, 2022. Revenues raised by this tax can be used to offset costs for Canadians and invest in a strong economic recovery that supports their highest priorities.

In conclusion, when taken together, all of these measures that I have touched on today show that our government is following through on its commitment to a fair tax system. We will continue to follow through on this commitment as we move forward, including with respect to our commitment to ensure that large, profitable banks and insurers pay their fair share as well. I am pleased that with today's motion for debate, we will have the support of the hon. member for Burnaby South and his colleagues as we do so. I appreciate the opportunity to make the case and speak in the House today.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford spoke about the litany of broken Liberal promises. I am concerned that the Liberals may break their promise to create a publicly accessible nationwide beneficial ownership registry. This would not only help tackle money laundering, which is having a devastating impact on our housing market, but it also would make it easier to identify assets connected to sanctioned Russian oligarchs and strengthen the enforcement of sanctions.

Can the member speak to the need for a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry and commit to pushing her government to fulfill its promises?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say I am very proud of our government and the promises that we have kept. Many of them I mentioned in my speech, including increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1%, reducing them on the middle class, supporting our families both with respect to introducing the Canada child benefit and now a national child care plan, which all provinces and territories, except for Ontario, have already signed on to. There have been many other promises to try to reduce income inequality and create tax fairness in this country.

In terms of the publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry, I fully support it and am very proud that our government has committed to implementing it. Money laundering is indeed a very serious issue. It is one that is increasing in complexity, so I support this program and I absolutely support continuing to encourage our government to implement it as quickly as possible.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about how, at the beginning of its mandate, the government raised taxes on some people. The promise it had made at the time was that the tax shifting it was doing would be revenue-neutral. However, in the end it was not. It significantly added to the deficit, and we have seen continuing measures that have added to the deficit.

I think what the member glosses over in her remarks is just how unequally and disproportionately the effects of high levels of deficit spending, leading to inflation, fall on middle and lower-income Canadians. Those who are very wealthy have a variety of tools at their disposal for protecting themselves from the effects of inflation, but everyday working Canadians simply do not have the same opportunities. We are passing on costs to those who can least afford it and to subsequent generations.

Does the member acknowledge this problem and believe the government needs to do more to confront inflation and other ways in which out-of-control spending is passing costs on to those who can least afford it?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. It is an important one. I would like to respectfully disagree with the member. I think we have done a lot. We have implemented many things to do everything we can to try to reduce income inequality in our country. Whether it was the introduction of the Canada child benefit, the increase in the GIS, taxing the top 1% and reducing tax on the middle class, or introducing increases in the Canada worker benefit a couple of times, there have been a number of measures we have taken to try to reduce income inequality in our country.

Inflation absolutely is a huge issue and I think it impacts everyone. We should mention that there are a number of measures in place that will help to protect those on the lower end of the income scale in our country, indexed to inflation, so our—

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

I have to allow the opportunity for another question.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague that I am particularly concerned. Since this has come up in her speech, what can we start doing? We know this is about beneficial ownership that is absolutely hidden. Foreign corporations can be running shell companies in Canada. There is no way to track them down. This applies across a number of provinces as well as federally. Canada is now being advertised in places like Russia as the place to hide one's assets. A recent report called “Snow-washing, Inc.” draws attention to it, so it is both federal and provincial.

I would love to hear my hon. colleague's comments on when we can crack down on this, particularly in light of what has happened with respect to the Russian assets of oligarchs around the world.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her excellent question and for bringing this back to the fore.

I agree 100% that we need to do everything we can to bring this beneficial ownership registry into effect. We have to do everything we can to make sure it is transparent with respect to who owns the public assets. This should be a key priority for our government moving forward.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

The pandemic has made it very clear that we are not all in this together. We are living in a growing corporate dictatorship where some of us are on lifeboats and some of us are sailing on yachts, where the privileges of corporations are increasingly usurping the rights of workers, Mother Earth, individuals and families, and where the divide between the haves and the have-nots is growing in favour of the ultrawealthy who are becoming richer by the minute while more and more people are finding it increasingly difficult to survive.

Meanwhile, many of my constituents are barely able to make rent. The rising cost of food is making food insecurity even more common. The most basic human rights continue to be up for debate in this House while the government continues to reward its corporate friends on the backs of people, including my constituents in Winnipeg Centre. For workers, real wages are falling and Canadian billionaires are becoming richer, including a $78 billion annual increase in their wealth a year after COVID began, an unprecedented pandemic that has left more and more people scrambling to survive.

This increase in their wealth has been generated with a complete disregard for human rights, including the rights of workers. Take, for example, Sobeys, one of Canada's largest grocery chains, its parent company Empire got rid of its $2 an hour pandemic hero pay, like Loblaws and Metro. It was hero pay for workers who put their lives on the line during the pandemic so that people could continue to be fed. Adding insult to injury, most Sobeys stores are not even unionized. It is a company that has fiercely and fearlessly resisted organizing efforts, showing a total disregard for the rights of workers.

This disregard for workers by Sobeys was not because it wanted to keep food costs down for consumers. In fact, people are paying more for groceries than ever, 6.5% grocery inflation, the highest in more than a decade. It is because of greed, uncontrolled greed with CEOs laughing all the way to the bank. Sobeys just reported a quarterly profit of $203.4 million, up from $176.3 million last year, and it is not the only one laughing. In fact, Loblaws saw its fourth-quarter profit more than double compared to last year, with its net earnings available to common shareholders rising to $744 million. Metro grocery reported net profits of $207 million at the end of 2021.

It is uncontrolled greed with no shame, as we witnessed from Sobeys president and CEO Michael Medline, who boasted on a conference in December about how much money they were raking in, stating, “It was a straight-up good quarter, well-executed by our teams across the country.”

It was not “a straight-up good quarter” for my constituents who shop at FreshCo on Sargent Avenue, struggling to put food on the table because every trip to the grocery store is more expensive than the last. It was not “a straight-up good quarter” for workers who had their hero pay taken so that CEOs could line their very deep pockets with more cash. Our economic system is rigged, with corporate greed and wealth borne on the backs of individuals and families that is even impacting their ability to have their most basic human rights respected, including the right to food security.

Seriously, workers and consumers are seeing no benefits from the major grocery chains' record profits, which are rising because prices are rising. Profits are growing because they are cutting workers' pay and sometimes even violating their human rights, including the profits that were made possible by the many migrant farm workers who grow the food that is sold in these stores, some of the most exploited and mistreated workers in the country.

In fact, last December the Auditor General found that the government failed to protect migrant farm workers during COVID-19, revealing that the federal department responsible for keeping them safe did not properly enforce health and safety measures related to the pandemic. At least three migrant farm workers died from COVID, and many more became sick.

For the Liberal government to wilfully turn a blind eye to this human suffering is unacceptable, demonstrating time and time again that it is way too close to its corporate friends. What has the Liberal government done to require large companies like Sobeys, Loblaws and Metro, which have earned windfall profits during the pandemic, to share this wealth with workers and communities to ensure the human rights of workers are upheld? Nothing. In fact, the government has yet to implement a tax on excess profits of banks and insurance companies, despite promising to do so in the last election.

What are Liberals waiting for? They need to immediately implement the 3% surtax and expand it to include big grocery chains, big-box stores and big oil companies that continue to earn record profits. We need this revenue to make life easier for individuals and families who are struggling to afford to live with the skyrocketing cost of living.

It could fund, for example, a new and expanded income support program for seniors, students, people with disabilities and individuals with complex mental health needs and trauma, who are some of the hardest hit by these price increases. It could pay for a national school meal program that would ensure no child ever has to attend class on an empty stomach. It could help fund a guaranteed livable basic income like the one I am proposing in Bill C-223.

It is clearer than ever that we are not all in this together. So many people are just trying to survive at this point, while the wealthy elite have never had it so good. They are in their luxury yachts and rocket ships while more and more people are surviving in lifeboats.

Enough is enough. It is time to grow workers' paycheques, and not CEO bonuses and shareholder dividends. It is time for the biggest corporations that have made a killing during the pandemic to pay their fair share. It is time to put people before profits and give people who are struggling the support they need to survive, and not just to survive but to thrive. It is time for all people to have what they need to live in dignity.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the intervention by the member from Manitoba and could not help but reflect, as I was listening to what she was saying and was being accusatory toward a Liberal government, on the fact that the Manitoba NDP government, on I believe either four or five consecutive occasions, decreased the corporate income tax in the province of Manitoba.

I realize that does not necessarily negate anything she said, and I am certainly not saying that, but I am wondering if she has the same criticism toward the NDP party within Manitoba for essentially doing the thing she is accusing consecutive governments within this chamber of doing.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague would like to run to become a Manitoba MLA, I am certainly sure I could connect him with somebody in Manitoba.

I am a federal member of Parliament and I am calling on his government, which has given multiple corporate bailouts since the time I was elected, to take responsibility for its failure to individuals throughout this country who are struggling and to make sure the ultra-rich are paying their fair share, to make sure people can stay housed and to make sure they can afford to eat and have their basic human rights respected.