SoVote

Mar/31/22 4:24:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know where my hon. colleague on the other side of the aisle believes that I think the status quo is helping Canadians. I think the status quo is a disaster for Canadians. Yes, we do need to change the status quo considerably. There are sectors that have been protected during the pandemic by the government in charge of this. That sector needs to kind of make sure that it steps forward. All kinds of corporate welfare have been doled out through this $560 billion of debt that the government has built up over the last handful of years. That has to change considerably. That is what I am after here. I will tell the hon. member on the other side of the House again that we need to stop this corporate welfare. This is what we mean by winners and losers. Who is making these choices, as far as giving Canadian taxpayer dollars to their own friends and relations on the other side of the House?

171 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/31/22 4:25:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although I do not take particular exception to being told that I do not know what I am talking about, I will tell the member for Calgary Centre that I have been collecting and paying EI, CPP and WSIB on behalf of employees since 1997 and turning them over to the government. To his point, what I said was that if I were to collect a benefit and hold on to that, which would later be turned over to that employee at another point, what I was holding on to would have been considered an asset. I did not say paying those source deductions would be considered an asset, which is the way he characterized the answer to my question. Nonetheless, I am thrilled to have the opportunity today to talk about this particular motion. I want to congratulate the Conservatives for bringing forward a motion once again that actually has substance. This is the second time I am saying this within two weeks. Yes, they deserve to applaud themselves for that, because quite often what we see coming before the House are grandiose motions that really just look to paint individuals into a corner and to put people in a certain negative light. This is actually talking about substance, so I can appreciate their interest and I can appreciate that they have actually brought something forward. This is an issue of whether or not we agree with this concept. I will explain where my issues lie with the motion. I am going to start by addressing some of the premises that the motion is based on. I have been listening to the discussion. Earlier today, I heard the member for Brandon—Souris say that only a Liberal government could increase tax on those making over $200,000 a year and bring in less revenue. I would say in response to the member that only a Conservative MP could not understand the very simple logic of empowering the middle class that moves our economy forward. It is giving the middle class a break, which is what we did and what he was referring to, that has driven forward the economy. That has given us one of the best economies, if not the best economy, in the G7 over the last six years. It is what has delivered us to the point of being able to have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. As a matter of fact, as I mention the debt-to-GDP ratio, I would note that Canada is currently in the best position among our G7 partners. It is very interesting. I sound like a broken record, I realize that, and I know the Conservatives think that I do, but I hear them once again go back to discussing the debt, and how much debt there currently is, and how this government is running a deficit. I would tell them, and I have told them many times in the House before, that Brian Mulroney never ran a surplus. He ran a deficit. Stephen Harper had one surplus. That was when he was first elected. That was actually Paul Martin's surplus, but whatever. Then Mr. Harper did “balance” the budget just before the 2015 election. How did he do that? He slashed veterans' services and sold off GM stock at bargain prices. Yes, he got himself to a position where he could say that he balanced the budget, if that is what we are measuring success by, but I would argue that was only to run in that 2015 election so he could appease his base who were pushing him in that direction. Why do we do that? Why do we run deficits? Why do governments run deficits, typically speaking? They do it because they are looking for opportunities and they want to make sure that we can continue to invest in our economy, because they know that if the economy is growing at a faster pace than the deficit, we are actually generating a net positive at the end of the day. That is why all of the OECD countries are always pinning themselves against the debt-to-GDP ratio. At the end of the day, that is what matters. What did we do? We brought in meaningful programs before COVID hit. We brought in programs that asked the top income earners, the 1%, to pay more. Yes, we did. We gave a tax break to middle-income Canadians, because we knew that they fuel the economy. What did we see out of that? We saw economic activity grow at an astronomical pace in Canada. We were among the best in the world for a domestic economy. Then what happened when COVID hit? COVID hit and instantly everything came to a halt because people were understandably concerned. They were not aware of what was going to happen and there was a great pulling back in what people were willing to spend their money on and invest in, and I am talking about businesses specifically. Afterward, we made sure that the supports were there to give businesses and Canadians, and quite frankly those investing in the Canadian economy, the confidence they needed to know that the Canadian government would be there for them to get them through this and out on the other side. Within five weeks, we were the first to deliver supports to Canadians. When I say “we”, I want to give credit where credit is due, because the Conservatives voted in favour of that. Had they not come forward and said, yes, they would give unanimous consent to spend this money immediately, it would have dragged the process down and it would have taken a lot longer to get the supports. A lot more doubt would have been put into businesses and Canadians. Conservatives should take the credit for that, the credit that they are rightfully owed, in terms of their participation in that. That is what gave the confidence and the economy the confidence it needed to continue going. Where have we found ourselves afterward, as we have started to come out of COVID? We have started to see that we are rebounding back. We have recovered 114% of jobs lost since the pandemic. We have the best GDP in the G7 right now. The economic infrastructure in the beginning put things in the right place. Because of what we did during the pandemic, we are going to reap the rewards coming out of this. We are in a better position than our counterparts throughout the globe and as a result Canadians, Canadian businesses and those that invest in Canadian businesses will be the net beneficiaries of that. The motion talks about a path to balance. This party ran in an election six months ago promising to spend more than we were spending. The member for Durham, the leader of the official opposition during that election, and maybe this is why they got rid of him, said that he would balance the budget in 10 years. That was the member for Durham. That was his commitment, to balance the budget in 10 years. I understand the frustration of some members, perhaps those that are responsible for this motion, and where they are coming from, because maybe they did not agree with that, but the reality is that this is where this particular political party, the Conservative Party of Canada, was less than a year ago, only six months ago, during that election. One of the problematic parts of this motion is specifically with respect to item (ii). I know it has come up a couple of times and that NDP members have raised it, as well as members from this side of the House. I have asked a couple questions on this, and section (ii) is where it refers to the Canadian pension plan as a tax. If this was just about semantics, and if this was just about terminology and payroll taxes and source deductions meaning the same thing, I would be totally fine with it. The problem is that they explicitly refer to it as a tax and then later on they say “no new taxes”. What they are basically saying in here is that CPP will not go up. It is ironic, because the member for Barrie—Innisfil just stood there and was reading clips he had received from constituents. One of them, and I do not know if he had read them in advance, but I wrote it down when he said it, was from a gentleman by the name of John. John wrote and complained about the costs of living right now, saying that the only thing he would have to survive on later was his measly CPP. The member for Barrie—Innisfil read that out less than 40 minutes ago right in the House. Meanwhile, his motion is calling on reducing the contributions toward CPP. CPP is paid for not just by the employee but also by the employer. It is a well-regarded, well-respected plan that has been in this country for a long time. I understand the previous speaker from Calgary Centre, and I understand that he has an immense background in business. I can truly and genuinely appreciate that his logic or his position on the way that businesses should operate, in seeing only its value and thinking that a business will make a decision to leave Canada or start reducing payroll employees just because of a CPP increase. I would suggest to him that our economic environment, our country and our social fabric represents so much in this country in terms of why businesses want to be here. Businesses are not just here because of taxes. I know that from when I was the mayor of Kingston. Quite often we would have businesses trying to come to Kingston and they would say they wanted to talk about how much we charge for water or they wanted to talk about property taxes. At the end of the day, even though we were more expensive than Brockville or Belleville and a number of other locations, they saw the value in establishing their business in our community. I would offer to the member for Calgary Centre that businesses do not just look at what it is going to cost from a strictly monetary perspective. They also look at employee retention. People loved setting up businesses in Kingston because they knew that the employment base was there. They knew that there was a labour force there that was ready and willing to work. If we can make sure that we have the right programs in place to make sure that throughout Canada we have the right employees who are trained properly and willing to work, I would suggest to the member for Calgary Centre that the increases in the CPP will be looked at as an investment in people, not strictly a cost of doing business, as he suggested. I also want to talk about was price on pollution. I will also correct the member for Barrie—Innisfil on something he said earlier. Again, I was listening very closely, as I try to do with everyone when they are speaking. He said the cost per litre was going to go up by 11¢. That is not true. The cost is currently 8.8¢ and will go up to 11¢, so the cost is only increasing by 2.2¢. I will give the member for Barrie—Innisfil the benefit of the doubt. He probably said it very quickly and did not realize what he was saying, but it is important for people to know that it is not an increase of 11¢, as he said earlier. More importantly, pricing pollution is such a widely accepted and regarded policy. Half of the G20 countries have some form of pricing pollution. The former leader, the member for Durham, ran on pricing pollution. I know it was not exactly the same plan. The member for St. Catharines referred to it earlier as a plan that said the more that is burned the more that is earned. That is true because it was a plan that basically said, if someone spends x number of dollars on their version of carbon pricing, they would get some form of credits, Air Miles or something, where they could then go to a boutique somewhere, I imagine, and start buying these green products. I do not understand how these members who ran on this just six months ago cannot understand that this is exactly what we have now. The only difference is that we are not encouraging people to go out and spend more so they could get more Air Miles. We are encouraging people to look for ways to spend less and pay a smaller price for carbon. If we do that, then it will drive people to actually spend less, but they will have a net benefit because the amount to be redistributed is equal. I just want to say—

2199 words

All Topics

Mr. Stephen Ellis

Mar/31/22 4:40:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, the member across the way seemed to refer to the Air Miles program. I believe that is a copyrighted program, and I am really quite certain that was not part of the Conservative plan. I think the member probably should correct himself on that.

53 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/31/22 4:40:29 p.m.
Watch

The member is correct. There are certainly copyright issues. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

13 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/31/22 4:40:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although I am pretty sure we can refer to trademarked or copyrighted material in the House, he is correct. I am being facetious when I call it “Air Miles”. What were they calling it? I believe it was the carbon rebate program, where people stacked up points and got neat prizes. Whatever it is called, it is what it is. I was going somewhere with this. I want to congratulate the Conservatives because they are finally at the point where they are able to have the words come out of their mouths that acknowledge the fact that money is being given back to people. They raise important questions. They brought up a couple of times lately during question period about how much money is going back, whether is it eight out of 10 Canadians or six out of 10 Canadians and who is benefiting from it. Those are the conversations we should be having in this House, because at least those conversations start from a point of factual accuracy. They start from a point of understanding the concepts before we start engaging in the discussion. Now I can have a discussion with them. Now we are going to discuss whether the math is lining up and whether the money is going to the right places, as opposed to just obtusely ignoring the fact that the money is distributed to Canadians in the first place. I am really thrilled. I particularly want to mention the member for Kenora, who was willing to talk about that in his speech, and I heard at least one other Conservative member talk about it as well. At the end of the day, when it comes to this particular program, I am in favour of the model that has been created. It is important to point out that not all provinces have the price on pollution that was implemented by the federal government. In many areas, it can be done by the provinces. The Province of Quebec does it, as we heard earlier from the Bloc. As a matter of fact, a member brought it up earlier, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who talked about the program in Quebec specifically. He talked about how it was a deal that was set up with California. He is right. I know this because my father was the environment minister in Ontario when that was put in place. Ontario was actually in that same program with Quebec and California, but, unfortunately, on day one, Doug Ford bailed and got rid of Ontario's participation in cap and trade. That is why the federal government had to implement its program, as it has had to do in several other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, which had a program in place that was removed. I am glad that we are talking about an important issue today. I am glad that the Conservatives seem to be taking seriously their role as it relates to bringing forward motions of actual substance. This is a good discussion to have. I do not agree with a lot of what is in this motion. I will not be voting in favour of it, and I do not think I am surprising anybody by saying that. Nonetheless, I appreciate the position that Conservatives are taking, and hopefully we can find compromise on something else.

562 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Mar/31/22 4:44:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is great to have such a high-minded debate on such an important issue, and on this side of the House, we appreciate the member's comments referring to so many of our colleagues who made some important points about this motion. I thank him for repeating what we have said here. I am going to correct him with regard to CPP. CPP payments from the employers and employees are going up 10% and the payouts are staying the same, in case he does not realize that about CPP either. When are we going to get to balance? We talked about the amount the government has spent in the last couple of years, which is $560 billion, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that over $170 billion of that was not necessary at all for the pandemic. It is excessive government spending that was not required in order to get us out of the hole the pandemic put this country in. Before a pandemic, $170 billion was the most that has ever happened. This will be the highest deficit in Canadian history. The member talked about all kinds of stuff. If he does not think it is because of the regulatory burdens the government is throwing on their backs, including the payroll taxes that are rising without benefit to the employees, why are companies leaving Canada?

231 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/31/22 4:45:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in the question. However, specific to the member's comments about CPP, it is a program that people are investing in for the long term. In theory, the people who are investing in it today will not be making withdrawals from it for several years, depending on how far they are from retirement, and we need to make sure that the investments continue to remain up so that when those individuals look to retire 20, 30, 40 years from now or whatever it might be, they have an opportunity to have economic security when they retire. The member brought up a couple of other points that escape me right now, but perhaps one of his colleagues will ask them and I will be able to answer them then.

136 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Mar/31/22 4:46:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his fine speech. However, we are discussing the budget. He spoke about several very important aspects. We cannot talk about the economy without talking about the workforce. There is a serious labour shortage in my riding and throughout the regions of Quebec. Emploi‑Québec has estimated that 1.4 million positions will need to be filled in Quebec between now and 2028. The vast majority of these jobs, 81.2%, are positions that will be left vacant by baby boomers retiring en masse. Creating a tax credit for young graduates and immigrants in the regions is a good way to fill those positions, as is calling on experienced workers, especially those who are 65 and older and want to return to work. In addition, transferring to Quebec—

147 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/31/22 4:47:24 p.m.
Watch

Could we have the hon. member's question, please? The hon. parliamentary secretary.

13 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/31/22 4:47:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I remember one of the comments from the member previously, and it was about the path to balancing a budget. I would say to the member for Calgary Centre that the most important thing is to be aligning ourselves in a favourable position as it relates to our debt-to-GDP ratio, because that is what is important. That is what signals the ability we have to repay that debt, and that is so much more important, as previous Conservative governments themselves signalled through their budgets. On the member's question specifically about how we deal with the challenge as it relates to lack of employment, yes, it is a big challenge that we have. My understanding is that in 2021 alone, half a million new immigrants who came to Canada became permanent residents. I think that is one of the ways, quite frankly, that we are going to deal with this. My parents came to Canada in the 1950s, post World War II, in search of new opportunity. Their parents looked at Canada as a shining light in the world; as a place to become prosperous and a place to set up new roots. I think we can do the same thing now to make sure that we keep growing our economy so that we can take care of baby boomers.

224 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/31/22 4:48:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to put something on the record to clarify it, because I know that my hon. colleague for Kingston and the Islands would appreciate this point of clarification. The member was talking about Conservatives and balanced budgets and the myths that go along with it. I would like to remind the House that in the time of the Conservative government when the Conservatives did try to balance the budget, it was because they raided the EI fund; those deferred wages from taxpayers and from those workers. Of course, when they raided that EI fund, they learned from the best, the Liberals, who had done it three times before them to the tune of over $50 billion.

119 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/31/22 4:49:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would certainly agree with the first part of what the member said. The reality is that I do not think that running deficits is coming from a place of not properly managing a budget. Conservatives, as the member rightly said, did it, and in 16 budgets between Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, only two were either balanced or ran a surplus. I talked about those in my speech earlier. The important thing here is that people understand, and governments know, that the most important thing is growing our economy faster than we are taking on debt. That is how we end up paying for it. That is how developed countries throughout the world are doing it. Conservatives know that. It is a great talking point for them, because they know it resonates well with people out there. I do not blame them for doing it, but the reality is that they should know better than to speak like this, especially the member for Calgary Centre who—

170 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/31/22 4:50:43 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

8 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Mar/31/22 4:50:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member think that the inflation we currently have is a problem?

16 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/31/22 4:50:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, 100% I think it is a problem. According to the Conservatives, a year ago the Prime Minister was incapable of doing anything right, and now they are suddenly giving him credit for being able to affect global inflation. Inflation is a global problem. For this Conservative member and for many other Conservative members to stand up and try to suggest that inflation is only a Canadian-made problem means they do not get out and look around or read a newspaper to see what is going in the world. This is a global problem. This is not a uniquely Canadian problem. Do I think it is an issue? Absolutely. Do we need the proper tools and policies in place to deal with it? One hundred per cent we do, and I am very confident that this finance minister will come forward with those.

145 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Mar/31/22 4:51:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have talked a bit about the price on carbon pollution. What I am curious about is if the member would like to share with me his thoughts about the price of pollution. There is an actual price on our economy and on individuals. I know I have heard about it from people in my community. The price of insurance is going up, and there are other issues like that. Perhaps the member might want to comment on that aspect.

82 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/31/22 4:52:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely, there are those prices that people are seeing right now, today, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned. Insurance costs are rising as a result of more flooding and various other issues. There is also the price that future generations will pay. The less we do now to fight climate change and to put the right policies in place, the more we will make our children deal with later on. I know that Conservatives are very concerned about what our children will have to deal with later on. They bring it up all the time, but they only bring it up in a monetary perspective, in a dollar value. There is also the value of the quality of life, the quality of the environment and the planet that we are leaving children decades from now. I want to make sure that my children, the parliamentary secretary's children, all members' children and all Canadian children have the best possible shot at having the best possible lives when they get older.

171 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/31/22 4:53:22 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Health; the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Persons with Disabilities.

62 words

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Mar/31/22 4:54:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, who I know has a dynamic speech members are going to want to hear right after mine. The member opposite made a comment just now. He said that the more we do now in climate change, the less our kids will have to do when they get older. It is a good comment and a true comment, but it also applies to many other things we do here in government, and that includes fiscal and financial responsibility. It means saying we are going to take responsibility for how we spend our money now so that our kids do not need to make difficult choices of the kind we had to make in the nineties. I thought I would take a trip down memory lane on what happened in the nineties, because some of these members need to understand exactly what that was like. Even going back into the eighties, I can remember coming out of high school looking for a job, and I and 30 other kids were applying at McDonald's. I remember thinking that would have been a great job, because that was all that was available. I remember high inflation rates. I remember buying my first house in the nineties and being excited about getting an interest rate of 14%. I was excited at 14%. Now if I cannot lock it in for 3%, I am really upset. How things can change, and how things can change back. In the nineties we had former finance ministers Ralph Goodale and Paul Martin under Chrétien, who were faced with a situation that was very, very dire. There had been 27 years of unbalanced budgets, 27 years of mismanagement and overspending. All of a sudden we had foreign bankers and bondholders telling this country what we could and could not do. They were basically putting the thumbs to us and saying that we needed to balance our budget or the IMF was going to come in. I know former prime minister Chrétien said that this was not going to happen and took responsibility, and I credit him for doing that. Those were tough times, and I do not want to see our kids having to make the same decisions. Let us look at the cuts they had to make. When we look back to 1993-94, we see that basically the transfers to the provinces were just stifled. In fact, it took about 15 years to get the amount of money that was cut to health care back to where it was. I remember times when I had grandparents who were looking for surgery, and all of a sudden there was no surgery. I remember people screaming that we needed more health care funding, but there was no money for it. I can remember people saying that we needed to have more social services, but there was no money for those social services. We did not have it. We had wasted it. In 1995 The Wall Street Journal called Canada a third world country. That is where we were in 1995. According to Edward Greenspon and Anthony Wilson-Smith's 1996 Double Vision, Jean Chrétien's three priorities in 1993 kept the IMF out of here. That is because he made some really tough decisions. He had to take extreme measures and cut government spending in real terms. He cut as much as we had ever seen since before World War II. Chrétien got rid of a lot of the grants. He got rid of a lot of the things people took as staples. In fact, he cut the CBC so badly that the president of CBC resigned the next day. That is what can happen when we let spending get out of control. That is what can happen when we do not have a balance in place, and that is what is really concerning about the government at this point in time. As we go into new spending, there are things I would love to see. I would love to see a dental care program. I think it would be wonderful, if we can afford it. I would love to see a pharmacare program, if we can afford it. You bet I would love to see a national day care program, if we can afford it. What bugs me in this situation is that we possibly could afford it if we did not keep shooting ourselves in the foot. If we would allow our resource sector to actually do what it does best in the world, we would actually make a difference and be able to pay for a lot of these things. If we let the oil actually get to market, we would have the royalties at the provincial level and the federal level so that we could transition our economy in a way that would not be burdensome to our kids. We would not have to borrow money to do it. We could actually pay cash for it. What an amazing idea: paying cash for something. There is nothing wrong with that. I was listening to members across the aisle talking about every country being in deficit and having inflation. Who cares? This is Canada. This is what Canada needs to do. Canada has inflation so Canada needs to worry about its inflation. Canada needs to worry about its own spending. I do not worry about U.S. spending; the U.S. can worry about its spending. I do not worry about European spending; they can worry about their spending. They can let their kids figure out how they are going to pay for it. I would rather to take care of things in my own house here in Canada so I know my kids have a great standard of living, so I know my kids can get surgery when they need it, so I know my kids can get EI and CPP when they need it. That means we need to be responsible. It means we need to show respect for taxpayer dollars here and now, not 10 years from now, because what I am seeing right now is that fact. We just spend it. When we see a bank making huge profits of $6 billion or $7 billion, what do we see the coalition government here say? They say that is bad. Where does that money go when they make revenues of $6 billion or $7 billion? It goes to Canadian shareholders. It goes to pension funds. It goes to groups that distribute it back into the economy. What do those people do? They pay taxes. Let us look at what the banks are also doing. They are lending to small businesses, to farmers and to medium-sized enterprises and big companies. They are actually providing the capital for them to operate so they can hire people. That is how capitalism works. If they want to go to communism, let them ask Venezuela how that works or ask Russia or USSR how that works. It does not work. Let them ask Cuba how it works. It does not work. Big government does not work. The more we can get our fiscal house in order and the more we can take responsibility, make responsible decisions and be proactive in deciding what we are going to do moving forward, the better this country is going to be. We have a few examples of what happens when the government is not proactive. I will just take the war in Ukraine right now and how ill prepared Canada would be if Russia had decided to come to Canada instead of Ukraine. We are naive. We think that will never happen and that the U.S. would protect us. Really? Ukrainians might have thought the same thing until 2012 when it happened. Then they thought it would never happen again. Well it happened again. People in Poland are certainly second-guessing that right now. Are we prepared? We are going to buy 88 jets, it sounds like. That is a good thing. We could have bought them eight years ago, though. We would have been prepared then. They have a habit in the current government of actually waiting to dig a well until we are thirsty. Then it is too late. Can we not be proactive? Can we not do things ahead of time? Can we not anticipate things? Can we not look at things and say, “This is what we need to do”? Can we get beyond just one focus, which is the environment? The environment is important. I am not criticizing that, but what I am saying is that we can do that and do three, four or five or six other things at the same time. They can link together and they can actually work in harmony and, again, leave a better country for our kids. There are some serious structural problems happening here in Canada. I hear it every day in my meetings with different groups and organizations. There are the vineyards, for example. The wine association people were talking this week about the excise tax escalating. They have repeatedly told the government it is a problem that is driving them out of business and that, if the government drives them out of business, all those small grape producers do not have a home for their grapes in Ontario. The winemakers actually gave notice to the grape producers this week that they will not have a home for those grapes. Therefore, that sector is going to die. I go to the manufacturing sector and talk to Canadian manufacturers and exporters. They say their costs of production are too high and they cannot compete anymore. They say, “We have all these free trade agreements and all this market access. It is wonderful and I am glad we have it, but if I cannot produce it in Canada what good are they?” Why do we not look at how we get those costs of production down and get the manufacturing to cost? If we want electric vehicles to be in Canada, then make it an attractive place to build them in Canada and do not chase the manufacturers to the U.S. and other jurisdictions. They should look at Canada and say it will be great building here because we have a good labour force, a good cost of production and market access right around the world. We have a stage that is set to be successful. However, we are missing pieces of that equation, and the current government is not addressing any of those items. When companies do come here and invest, members might notice a certain characteristic: government subsidization in order to get them to come here. We have to give them money to get them to locate here. Why not give them a good environment to do business in? Why not give them a good educational force? Why not give them the benefits that Canada historically has had all along? We have given up those historical advantages because we have overspent. We do not have anything left to give. There is a D-Day coming. There is a day when all of a sudden somebody is going to come in and a bondholder is going to drop our rating and we are going to say, “Oh my god, we have to correct things.” Probably our kids will have to make some very difficult choices like the Liberal government in 1993, 1994 and 1995 had to make. We will see health care cuts. We will lose our social benefits programs. That is coming. We can stop that if we show some responsibility and show some awareness of what our strengths are and take advantage of those strengths and help transition our country into being the next country in the next generation that can be number one throughout the world. Let us quit worrying about everybody else in the world. Let us worry about Canada.

2028 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/31/22 4:54:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-16 Bill C-15

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-15, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022; and Bill C-16, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

83 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 50