Daniel Blaikie

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would not say the federal budget is in a surplus situation. I think we are still going to see deficits. The 6% increase to the tax is due to the fact that we have an automatic mechanism to escalate the tax.

I think this is wrong. We as parliamentarians need to have debates and make deliberate decisions about tax increases. In the current environment, we are in a period of extreme inflation compared to previous decades. I do not think now is the time to have an exceptional tax increase on these products.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I already said my piece on the other matter.

In respect of the member's question on the motion that we are dealing with this evening, I would say that there is definitely a debate to be had about that proper balance. My point is that an automatic escalator makes it harder to have that debate, and it does not cause a debate to be had of necessity when those taxes go up.

Let us have those debates and let us make those decisions here on the floor of Parliament. An automatic escalator actually deviates from that very path of having a debate about the right balance in this place.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I feel I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to acknowledge what has happened in the House with the member for Don Valley North. Obviously I am not in a position to speak to the veracity of the claims that have been made in the media, but I think this is an important reminder of the very real personal and professional impacts the debate we have been having on foreign interference in elections can have.

It is an example of why it is important that we have a public inquiry, so we can have a proper airing of the kinds of accusations being made in the media, in many cases now by anonymous sources, and so that folks in the Chinese-Canadian community know that those claims are being considered by someone who has access to the full evidence and has the power to clear names where names should be cleared. That is why it is important that we have nothing short of a public inquiry.

On the question that was posed, it is a good point that while it is a relatively small increase in some ways, that argument does not really pass muster because it is a big impact on the bottom lines of these smaller producers of beer, spirits and wines. At the end of the day, if it is not that big of an increase, which is what the government is saying, then it is not that big a loss for it to bypass it.

We know that other government revenue has grown a fair bit because of inflation. This is not the place to do it. If the government wants other revenue, we know there are companies, such as Loblaws, frankly, that can afford to pay more in tax. The government should be looking at them, not smaller producers of beer, spirits and wine, to raise revenue.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to tell the story of Marcel Rheault and Mireille Morin, the owners of the Rheault Distillery in Hearst, Ontario, which produces Loon Vodka. They cannot raise their price any more to be competitive. A 6% tax hike is something that is really going to hurt them and their product, which has won many awards for its quality. It is for people like Marcel and Mireille that we need to adopt this motion this evening.

I am very pleased to rise and talk a little bit about the situation in Winnipeg. We have a lot of local brewers and distillers in the province of Manitoba. I think especially of Crown Royal, but there are many beer makers in Manitoba, such as Half Pints, Barn Hammer, Torque and Little Brown Jug. I could go on; there are a number. Manitobans are pleased to support their local brewers when they reach into the fridge for a beer at the end of a long week, if that is their choice. We want them to be able to continue to do that and continue to support local economies when they do. However, the fact of the matter is that many producers, particularly smaller producers, are in a tight spot when it comes to an increase in the excise tax.

The excise tax is not based on a percentage of their revenue or of their profit; it is a certain amount they have to pay for every unit sold, so when it goes up, it really has an impact on their business model. Also, because that increase in the rate of tax is tied to inflation, we are seeing that be a particularly high increase this year.

I think it was always a problem having a tax tied to inflation, a tax levied at an absolute rate, which is raised at the rate of inflation. It is something that was raised in 2017-2018 when the Liberals first brought this in. People asked, “What if we have a period of extraordinary inflation?” They said, “Well, that is not likely to happen. Inflation has been very consistent.” Of course, we know that major events can change the course of an economy, and Canada, along with many other parts of the world, has certainly been experiencing that. We have had a major event with the pandemic and there are major events happening as a result of climate change. Those are having an impact on the economy.

As we see inflation go up, we should not see the government exacerbating the problem of inflation by having an automatic increase in the tax, which is not to say that no taxes can increase, but it is appropriate to have a debate and a vote in Parliament in order to have that happen. What we are seeing now is the fruit of a decision to take Parliament out of the equation and have those taxes increase automatically at the rate of inflation instead of increasing them deliberately by a choice of Parliament in the face of difficult economic circumstances.

As my colleague for South Okanagan—West Kootenay pointed out earlier, quite rightly, there are other issues with the excise tax. New Democrats support the idea of a more gradual ramping up of the excise tax in order to help smaller brewers and smaller producers be more competitive when they are trying to carve out a space for themselves in what is a very competitive market with a lot of established, large players. That is not exactly what the motion calls for tonight, but I think that is part of the larger conversation we might be able to have more readily in this place if the excise tax were not already on an automatic escalator.

It would mean that government would have to come back to this place every year if it wanted to see the excise tax go up, and that would create opportunities for parliamentarians, like New Democrats, who are interested in a fairer excise tax structure for smaller producers, to raise those issues at that time. Today, then, we are doing this in the context of an opposition day motion, because otherwise there is no natural opportunity to be able to discuss this kind of thing.

I do think there is a real argument to be made about the particular economic circumstances we find ourselves in for Canadians who enjoy the odd beer and who are already facing increasing costs on groceries, rent and everything else. They do not need an added increase in the excise tax on their beer.

There is an argument to be made for small businesses that are going to be distressed by having to pay these additional costs and worrying about whether they can raise their prices in order to pass that on to the consumer without just getting shut out of the market.

I also think there is a more general and principled argument about the role of Parliament in approving taxation, where we can have great debates in this place about what the appropriate rate of taxation is on various things, and I am sure that we can find at least as much disagreement as we find agreement on that. I think it is important that this debate come to this place and that increases in taxes are approved.

I would say this is just the other side of the coin of another measure that I do not personally support, which is indexing income tax brackets to inflation, too. I think that governments and legislatures, particularly, have a responsibility to evaluate the circumstances and make decisions, in a particular time, about what is appropriate.

If that is a change in tax brackets, that is something that should be deliberately debated and about which a very intentional decision should be made. When it comes to something like the excise tax, likewise, that is something that should be debated and there should be an intentional decision about it.

I think this mechanism of an automatic escalator is problematic because it removes people's democratically elected legislators from the equation when we are having important debates about what an appropriate rate of taxation is.

I am a member of the finance committee, and I was certainly very happy to see in the finance committee's pre-budget consultation report a recommendation to freeze this planned excise tax increase, so that lets us know that it is not just coming from one party. It takes a majority voice on a committee in order to issue a recommendation, and I think the government should take very seriously the fact that coming out of one of the most senior committees of the House of Commons was a recommendation not to proceed with this tax hike.

I think they need to look at the extent to which the excise tax will be increased because of the extraordinary period of inflation we have been living through over the last 12 months. This was not the kind of usual inflation that was normal in the Canadian economy prior to the pandemic. I do not believe this is what the government of the day foresaw. It is certainly not what Canadians foresaw when this automatic escalator was put in, and I think it is reasonable to recognize that the situation calls for a different course of action.

That is why I am pleased to rise in support of the motion, alongside my other New Democratic colleagues.

[Grocery Industry, March 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, now that the New Democrats have forced an end to the government filibuster at committee and secured the testimony of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, I think we owe it to Canadians to make a little more time in this place to talk about the issues affecting them in the pocketbook, like grocery prices, for instance. Even as inflation begins to slow, grocery prices continue to rise at an outpaced rate, and grocery companies are walking away with all of that in profit while Canadians are cash-strapped.

The solution is to impose a windfall tax on grocery companies that are overcharging Canadians for their groceries as a clear signal that they will not get to walk away with that money and that the money will be reinvested in Canadians who are staring down the barrel of a recession.

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate all the positive response for Elmwood—Transcona in the chamber here today.

I want to say, first of all, that I agree with the member that the kind of partisan circus that has developed around this issue on Parliament Hill has not been helpful for getting to the bottom of the issue that Canadians are rightfully concerned about and deserve answers to. The best way to do that is through a public inquiry. There is no question about it.

That is why the NDP was actually the first party to call for a public inquiry. It is why we continue to call for a public inquiry. If his concern is the political temperature in this place and that this is not the appropriate forum to get to the bottom of these things, why is it the case that he and his government have not already called a public inquiry, and when are they going to do it?

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise on behalf of the good folks of Elmwood—Transcona to ask a question of my colleague.

[Points of Order, March 6th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order arising out of question period. A question was asked of a committee chair, and I am looking for clarification. I have had some personal experience with this in the chamber.

I would refer you to the 42nd Parliament. As a matter of fact, it happened to be the day the Prime Minister first decided to do Prime Minister's questions, where he answers every question. At that time, I was the second vice-chair of the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, and the chair and the vice-chair were both away on parliamentary business. A question was asked of the committee chair for that committee, and as the second vice-chair at that time, I stood to answer the question.

As it happens, the Prime Minister did not answer all of the questions that day, but more importantly, I think it served the House well to have someone who was an authorized spokesperson for the committee answer the question. There is often debate in this place about the appropriate role of parliamentary secretaries on committees and the right posture of the government toward committees, and I do not think it makes a lot of sense to have government members answer questions about committee business.

I wonder if the Chair might reflect on this point and come back with some guidance. I think the House would be well served if the Chair first looked to see if an authorized spokesperson for the committee is standing before proceeding to the government bench. I would welcome the Chair's reflection on that point at some appropriate time, whether that is right away or further down the line.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to today's NDP motion about privatization and the health system. It would accomplish two things. One is the substantive denunciation of privatization and the false narrative that somehow this is an innovative solution to the problems of our health system at the moment, or at any time for that matter. It is also a motion about accountability and holding the Prime Minister accountable for statements that he has made. He ran in 2021 denouncing the then Conservative leader who was talking about privatization as innovation and then recently lauded the Conservative premier of Ontario for privatization and called it innovative himself.

If we want to see the right kinds of outcomes from the government, accountability has to be part of that. It is natural and good in this place to hold people to account for the things they have said, particularly when Liberals contradict themselves. That is especially true in the case of the Prime Minister, who ought to be providing leadership in this moment on the health file. In my opinion, he cannot do that adequately unless he is a champion for public delivery of services over privatization. That is the accountability bit and why this is an important part of the motion.

On the substantive issue, one of the main reasons why it is really important not to encourage further privatization within the system is because it is not a solution to the problems. The overwhelming problem in our system right now is the lack of health human resources. That is an issue of training and education, frankly. It is about trying to mobilize Canadians who either do not have a career yet and are thinking about what career they are going to move into or contemplating a change in career and figuring out how we train them in order to do all of the various jobs within the health system, whether it is being a doctor, a nurse, a personal support worker, a health care aide, an RPN or an LPN.

The point is that we need to get more people working in our health care system. Setting up private clinics to compete with the public system for the people who are trained and are able to do those jobs is not going to solve the problem. It is just going to shift people around between different places within a system that is already starved for people. If private clinics somehow had a magic sack full of health care workers that they could just draw out like rabbits out of a hat, that would be one thing. That would be great. That would mean more people in the system and we could talk about terms and conditions, but we all know that is false.

We know that the people who are ultimately going to pay for the education and training of those people who are going to work in the private clinics is the public. Therefore, the public should have a right to avail themselves of the services of those very same people in the same institutions, not an institution for people who can pay for quick access and then a public system that is starved for talent and people due to private clinics paying more because they are accepting patients who can afford to pay more. That is the dynamic that is set up as we allow for more and more private delivery of services within the Canadian system, and that is why we are here to denounce that today.

It is not true that privatization is innovation. That word is often abused when we talk about health care. I think of the Conservative government in Manitoba under Brian Pallister and then Heather Stefanson, who talked about innovation. What did that mean for people in Elmwood—Transcona and northeast Winnipeg more generally? That meant that the Concordia emergency room got closed. That meant that the Transcona community IV program was shut down. That meant that the satellite cancer care clinic in northeast Winnipeg, run out of Concordia Hospital, was closed. That is what they call innovation.

It is not a coincidence that they call that innovation and they also call privatization innovation, because it is closing down services like that and refusing to do the hard work of setting up training programs to have an adequate number of health care professionals to deliver the services that people need. The Conservative governments then come in and say that we now need to privatize because it is not working. First, they close it down, then they starve our educational institutions of an adequate number of seats to train the folks that we need. Then they say it is broken and the only way to fix it is to call our buddies who are doing business in American health care and invite them across the border to come do it here.

That may be innovation from their point of view, from a profit-making point of view, but it sure as hell is not policy innovation when it comes to serving people well in their own communities in the way that Canadians have come to rightly expect, which is to not be greeted at the emergency room door and asked to see their wallets, but to be asked to see their health cards.

That is the way it should be. If we are going to preserve that in Canada, we need to focus the conversation at government levels. That includes the federal government in its role as a funder and the provinces in their roles as deliverers of health services. We need to be talking about how we meet the needs within the system.

The biggest, most pressing need right now is for more people who know how to do jobs to keep ERs open and in order to have access to primary care. We know that is the best investment because it allows people to take a preventative approach to health care and not be treated at the ER, but to be treated in a community clinic where it is cheaper for the system overall and ultimately better for people's health.

That is why the motion is important. It is important because it calls out the false narrative of innovation through privatization that we hear about far too often without any evidence that it actually works. It is also important because it is about holding the Prime Minister to account for the promise he made to Canadians in the 2021 election. Unfortunately, it seems he is going back on it.

Canadians will remember when the Prime Minister made a clear electoral commitment to electoral reform in 2015. He turned his back on that. We are not going to let him do it on health care. That is what today's debate is all about.

[Criminal Code, February 15th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, one of the ways we can help people who are suffering and who may at some point consider medical assistance in dying is by supporting the establishment of a Canada disability benefit and supporting the level of income that this benefit would deliver to be something that raises people out of poverty. New Democrats have suggested, for instance, that the level of that benefit should be set at $2,200 a month to ensure that people living with a disability actually have the means to live with dignity, to afford a roof over their head and to afford to feed themselves and their families. Is this something the member supports?