SoVote

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Apr/25/22 3:40:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the direction and control issue, obviously our government listens to stakeholders and consults with stakeholders. That is what we will continue to do. There was a nod in the budget to do that. We will continue to do that and go down that path. As for a specific time period, I cannot answer that. I would defer to the parliamentary secretary or the minister on that direct question. It is great to see that from day one, we consult, we listen and we will get to a solution that is optimal for all stakeholders.

99 words

Mr. Jake Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake, CPC)

Apr/25/22 3:40:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I start my speech today, I will inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe North. It is always nice to rise in this House to speak on behalf of Miramichi—Grand Lake. A lot of times when I am in my riding, it is nice to go into Tim Hortons or one of the arenas or public facilities and learn that my constituents like the fact that I get up on my feet a lot. I am doing it all for my constituents and it is an honour to do it. It is always an honour to rise in this House, but today I come with a sobering message from coast to coast to coast. Canadians cannot afford just inflation. No matter what this Liberal neo-democratic budget claims, we cannot spend our way—

146 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:41:39 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

16 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/25/22 3:41:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member just used a term that the Conservatives have decided to coin around the Prime Minister's first name and “inflation”. This has been ruled not to be admissible parliamentary language in this House. The Speaker, on a previous point of order that I raised, reconfirmed that. I would ask that you ask the member to withdraw that comment.

64 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:42:06 p.m.
Watch

It has been confirmed that it has been declared inadmissible, so I would like the hon. member to withdraw the comment.

21 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:42:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to stand on the point of order, if I could. I did not say the Prime Minister's name. I said “just”, which is one word, and “inflation”. I could have put a hyphen in there and I could have spelled that out too, I suppose, but I believe it is “just inflation”. I do not believe that has anything to do with—

75 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:42:39 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/25/22 3:42:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, perhaps we will give the member the benefit of the doubt that he might be new, but we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. It is very clear that he is indirectly trying to do that. If the member disagrees with the ruling of the Chair, he has an option to challenge that ruling, and he should perhaps exercise that, but in the meantime, if he is not going to do that, he should accept that ruling, a ruling that was made by our Deputy Speaker, a member from his party, and a ruling that you just reinforced.

102 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:43:11 p.m.
Watch

I would remind all members that when we are sitting in this chair, we have no parties and we do not belong to any party. To go back to the point in question, yes, we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly, and it has been determined that the expression can lead to interpretation. I would like the hon. member to withdraw it, please.

65 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:43:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, any time I say something wrong, I will withdraw it. Just so I get this right, because I want to do right by you as the Speaker, are you asking me to withdraw the words “just inflation”?

41 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:43:56 p.m.
Watch

I am asking you to withdraw the expression that you just used, because it does lead to interpretation. It has been ruled as such. Thank you.

26 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:44:07 p.m.
Watch

Then, Madam Speaker, I would retract the words “just” and “inflation”. I thank you for that. We cannot spend our way out of this historic inflation. This budget before the House is a classic Liberal tax-and-spend budget. Canadians know that they are the ones on the hook for this $50 billion of brand new Liberal spending in this budget. This is not what Canadians signed up for when they voted Liberal this past summer. Canadian citizens did not vote for an NDP-Liberal government. They voted for a Liberal government, sadly, but now they are getting an NDP-Liberal budget. No one voted Liberal-NDP on the ballot box, yet this is exactly what Canadians have at this moment. It is shameful. In Miramichi—Grand Lake, we rely on something to get things done: trucks. We rely on trucks to get things done. I live on a street with about 17 houses. There are at least four truck drivers and one transport company right on my residential street in Blackville, on Digby Street. That is why my office has been inundated with constituents concerned about the net-zero advisory body's annex of the Liberals' 2030 emissions reduction plan, where on page 192, it chooses trucks, vans and SUVs as public enemy number one. This NDP-Liberal government is doubling down on the people who drive trucks, vans and SUVs. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Jake Stewart: The member across knows that, and he should be ashamed because he has constituents who drive trucks and SUVs and vans. My constituents cannot afford inflation, paired with a tax on trucks. What my constituents and I believe all Canadians want is for the Liberal government to get its hands out of Canadians' pockets, take them out of there and give people the break they deserve. When I reviewed this budget with my staff, we were floored by the exorbitant amount of new spending that the Liberal-NDP government is planning on handing out. This is despite the fact that Canadians are experiencing a 31-year inflationary high. How bad does it have to get for the government and its multiple prime ministers, at this point, to address the reality that Canadians are facing every single day? I know the people of Miramichi—Grand Lake cannot afford another inflationary budget that adds to the crisis we are facing across this country. The fact that home prices have doubled since the Liberals formed government should be enough to call for a non-confidence vote, a vote that could never happen now that the NDP has been, what do we call it, bought off by the Liberal Party of Canada. After seven years of Liberal policies, Canadians are facing record-high inflation and a skyrocketing cost of living, leading to higher grocery and gas prices and a growing housing affordability crisis. More than half of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to pay their bills or rent, with three in 10 already falling behind at the end of the month. It is heartbreaking to hear the stories of families, in Miramichi—Grand Lake and across the country, being forced to go from shopping at the grocery store to now visiting the food bank. These are hard-working Canadian parents, struggling to feed their families. Now is not the time to add an emission tax on to farmers, yet that is exactly what the government is doing. What is this fixation on farmers, construction workers, oil and gas workers, and people who drive trucks, vans and SUVs? This is the type of government that is literally zeroing in on certain groups of Canadians and making their lives twice as miserable as the inflationary times we are already faced with because of the government's decision-making to begin with. These costs are being passed on to the consumer, driving higher costs in the grocery store aisles, and Canadians are feeling it. People in Miramichi—Grand Lake are feeling it. History is repeating itself. As we saw in the late 1970s and early eighties, Canada's government is spending outside of its means, and Canadians are paying for it at the gas pumps, grocery stores and every time we buy anything. Inflation is currently 6.7% nationwide, but in my home province of New Brunswick, inflation is 7.4%, with no sign of slowing down. Moncton, New Brunswick, has the highest MLS listing hike in home prices year over year, at almost 60%. At what point will the government start working with the different levels of government to get a proper solution, instead of trying to spend its way out of the crisis? That just does not work. The Liberal-NDP spending solution is one of the major reasons we are in this mess in the first place. This budget is adding $3,500 per household in national debt. How is passing the buck on to taxpayers having their backs? I would like the explanation for that. When looking at the budget and seeing how the government is planning on approaching the housing crisis, all I saw was a macroplan that will take many years to see any results. Many of those results will not be positive, if there are any, and there is no plan for immediate action. This will only add fuel to the inflationary fire, with no immediate help for Canadians trying to buy their first home. There are constituents calling me asking how a new registered savings plan would help them get into their first home when they are scraping by to pay their current bills. The Liberal-NDP government currently does not have Miramichi—Grand Lake's back. It does have its hands directly in both of our pockets, and probably the front pockets too. It is a government focusing on the perfect headline. What it really needs to be doing is focusing on a solution that will work. The government needs to get off its high horse, roll up its sleeves and get to work. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak. This is a bad budget for Canadians. The Conservatives have a better plan, as always, and I am happy to speak against this budget. The Liberals do not have Canadians' backs.

1059 words

All Topics

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

Apr/25/22 3:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not entirely surprised to hear the Conservatives be so critical about different political parties within this chamber working together. After all, that is what we are here to do. Unlike the Conservatives, who just whine and complain day after day after day, the NDP has actually looked for an opportunity to use its leverage to do better for Canadians. Perhaps the member and the Conservative Party should do the same. Is the member aware of the fact that our health care system came in during a minority Parliament and that the CPP, the Canada pension plan, came in during a minority Parliament? We would not have the Canadian flag had it not been for a minority Parliament, which approved and adopted our national flag. The member talks about trucks. He says that somehow this government is against those who own large trucks or vehicles. Is he aware that $550 million in this budget is to particularly incentivize the electrification of trucks and medium and large vehicles?

170 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:53:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, number one, if it was so amazing, why would it need the incentive? To a couple of points the member opposite made, I was a provincial MLA not long ago when the Prime Minister, who is still the Prime Minister today, offered New Brunswick a lowball number for health transfer payments, and a weak, young Liberal premier accepted the deal when no other province in Canada would. My home province's health care system is in disarray currently because of a decision by the prior government. The member opposite needs to look at that. He needs to look at how critical and dire the situation in my province is because of his own party and his own decisions.

120 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Apr/25/22 3:54:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question for my colleague is one that I will repeat many times for many of his colleagues within the Conservative Party. They have made it very clear that they do not support spending on things like pharmacare, dental care and supports for seniors, and I am wondering how he justifies that to his constituents in New Brunswick. How does he justify that he does not think the people in his constituency deserve dental care?

77 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:54:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask why the member supports a multi-tiered senior system. Are the NDP MPs, who are now in the Liberal caucus, supporting moving the age of a senior from 65 to 70, like the Liberals and their Prime Minister have already talked about? Are they supporting that? I would like to know.

56 words

Mr. Randall Garrison

Apr/25/22 3:55:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Conservatives like to take flights of rhetoric, but in this case, saying the NDP has joined the Liberal caucus is actually misleading the House and misleading the public. I would ask the member to withdraw it.

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:55:29 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is correct. The hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake will please withdraw the comment. There is no coalition.

22 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:55:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was under the impression that the NDP joined the Liberals in a coalition effort, so I just assumed they are in caucus together—

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:55:54 p.m.
Watch

I remind the hon. member that no such thing exists. The hon. member has the floor.

16 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 57