Daniel Blaikie

[The Budget, March 29th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the question was why quote someone as an authority if they believe that person should be fired.

However, that question was never answered.

I have to say that it is a little hard to know where to start. Obviously we are starting from different positions and indeed a different way of understanding the situation the country finds itself in.

The Leader of the Opposition had a lot of things to say. He said he would prohibit his ministers from participating in the World Economic Forum, I suppose as Stephen Harper did when he was prime minister, a time when he announced from Davos that he would be raising the retirement age in Canada from 65 to 67. That is what he did at the World Economic Forum. I am glad the member will not be sending anyone there so that when an announcement like that is made, the Conservatives can be held accountable in this place.

The member then talked about a blue seal program, which is a good idea and one the Conservatives promised in 2006, but after nine years of government, they did nothing for it.

Then he talked about giving $4 billion to the gatekeepers in this budget for housing. I presume the member means the “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy being funded to the tune of $4 billion in this budget. He had the audacity to criticize that after he invoked the example of the Squamish Nation, which is doing a good job of building housing.

Should we be surprised that he does not understand what is in the budget when members of his party announced they were going to vote against it before they even saw it? No, probably not. However, the question is, after saying all of those things and given that he likes to point out people saying things and not following through, why should Canadians believe him when the government he was a part of did not act on the very things he is talking about today?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 29th, 2023]

With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), broken down by federal electoral district: what is the total number of individuals with outstanding CERB debt who fall below the (i) low-income cut-off, (ii) market basket measure, (iii) low-income measure?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 29th, 2023]

With regard to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), since its inception: (a) what is the total number of individuals eligible for CERB who have (i) paid back their CERB debt in full, (ii) paid back their CERB debt partially, (iii) not paid back any portion of their CERB debt; (b) what is the total number of individuals who were deemed ineligible for CERB who have (i) paid back their CERB debt in full, (ii) paid back their CERB debt partially, (iii) not paid back any portion of their CERB debt; (c) how many individuals have had CERB debt recollected through (i) withholding of tax refunds or GST credits, (ii) reduction of EI benefits, (iii) garnishing of wages or other income, (iv) seizures or holds on bank accounts, (v) liens on homes or other properties; and (d) what is the total number of individuals with outstanding CERB debt who fall below the (i) low-income cut-off, (ii) market basket measure, (iii) low-income measure?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 29th, 2023]

With regard to the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), broken down by federal electoral district: what is the total number of individuals with outstanding CRB debt who fall below the (i) low-income cut-off, (ii) market basket measure, (iii) low-income measure?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 29th, 2023]

With regard to the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB), since its inception: (a) what is the total number of individuals eligible for CRB who have (i) paid back their CRB debt in full, (ii) paid back their CRB debt partially, (iii) not paid back any portion of their CRB debt; (b) what is the total number of individuals who were deemed ineligible for CRB who have (i) paid back their CRB debt in full, (ii) paid back their CRB debt partially, (iii) not paid back any portion of their CRB debt; (c) how many individuals have had CRB debt recollected through (i) withholding of tax refunds or GST credits, (ii) reduction of EI benefits, (iii) garnishing of wages or other income, (iv) seizures or holds on bank accounts, (v) liens on homes or other properties; and (d) what is the total number of individuals with outstanding CRB debt who fall below the (i) low-income cut-off, (ii) market basket measure, (iii) low-income measure?

[The Budget, March 28th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention some of the things in the budget worth commending. They are very familiar items to those of us in the NDP caucus who have been calling for affordability measures such as another doubling of the GST rebate; a Canada-wide dental insurance plan, which is now on the way; real and meaningful labour conditions around federal investments in clean tech to ensure that it is not just companies but workers who would actually benefit from the investments we have to make to launch ourselves into the new energy economy; and meaningful investments for indigenous people living in urban, rural and northern communities who are struggling, as many Canadians are, with the housing market.

However, I have to say the budget also rightly includes warnings of a coming recession, warnings that we are hearing from private sector economists as well. We know that when a recession hits and unemployment goes up, the program that Canadians depend upon to pay the bills is employment insurance. In fact, the employment insurance system was so bad, it had to be completely overhauled during the pandemic because it could not get the job done.

In September of last year, the government let those temporary measures drop. The Liberals have been promising EI modernization for the entire seven, or eight, depending on who one talks to, years they have been in government. They have not delivered. Why is it that, as Canada looks down the barrel of a recession, the government is missing in action on employment insurance reform?

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 27th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, we have known for a long time now that CERB debt incurred by desperate people at the height of the pandemic would disrupt Canada child benefit payments, which people rely on to feed and clothe their children. The Liberals are quick to say not to worry about it and that they will deal with it on a compassionate, case-by-case basis.

How is it compassionate for families to be surprised by an $800 shortfall in their monthly revenue? How is it compassionate for parents, now worried about their rent cheques bouncing, to have to sit on the phone for days just for a chance to beg CRA for relief?

Real compassion requires a policy of CERB debt amnesty for low-income Canadians. When is the government going to do it?

[Points of Order, March 22nd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reassure my colleague that I did not say that it was true; I asked if it was true.

[Points of Order, March 22nd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I just have a question. Was the time between the end of the speech and the beginning of Q and A interrupted by other business of the House?

[Points of Order, March 22nd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I think we should recall that at one time in the House of Commons there was a period without questions and comments. It was not until the McGrath committee report of the 1980s that Parliament adopted the practice of having questions and answers after comments.

If we look at certain provincial legislatures, like the legislature in Manitoba, they do not have the practice of questions and comments. The McGrath committee found that parliamentary debate would be far better if members were asked questions after their speeches. It was due to a very deliberate attempt to improve the quality of debate, by the McGrath committee in 1989, that we have questions and comments.

Unless we are going to study the issue and change our Standing Orders, I do not think members should go back on an important reflection of members at that time. It has been the tradition, up until now, to have meaningful debate in the chamber by having questions and comments, and that is what members are doing. Whether they are leaving the chamber or whether they are just stupefied, which I can believe with some members on the Conservative bench, and they choose to stay in their place—