44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 17, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, one thing our government did was believe in students. We believe, in particular, in university and post-secondary students, and we have done many things to help those students. We have doubled the Canada summer jobs. We have doubled the Canada student grant, and in this last fall economic statement, we have raised the threshold of repayment from $25,000 to $40,000. It is key that we have also eliminated interest on Canada student loans, which the party opposite has said was a bad decision and wasteful.
I am wondering if the member agrees with his party's position on our elimination of interest for the Canada student loans.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a good idea would be to have a government that manages its fiscal responsibilities. That would keep taxes lower and would bring inflation down so that the prices of houses and other assets do not go through the roof.
What would be really helpful to university students I speak to is to have a hope that they might actually be able to buy a home one day. Under the Liberal government, house prices have more than doubled. Many young people feel that they are never going to be able to get into a home, a dream that all Canadians have had until now. That would be a good solution.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. He seems concerned about the well-being of his constituents, and that is very commendable.
He talked about the cost of living and the cost of housing. We know that things are not easy right now in that regard. I talked about it earlier in the member's statement that I made. In Quebec alone, 600,000 people will experience hidden homelessness at some point in their lives. That is 7% of the population. Right now, there are 6,000 homeless people in Quebec alone. Those numbers grew during the pandemic.
What we need to do is build housing. I was talking to an economist from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recently who said that, if we allow market forces to run their course for the next 10 years, 500,000 housing units will be built in Quebec alone. However, 1.1 million housing units are needed.
Our Conservative friends are always saying that we need to cut spending, but somewhere along the way, the government needs to intervene to build 600,000 housing units if we want to address the issues of affordability and availability.
How do we do that?
205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the way to get more houses built is to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of Canadian business people and to bring interest rates down so that housing is more affordable.
I was talking a home builder in my riding who wanted to put up a large project of 400 or so units of affordable housing within the definition of CMHC's rules about affordable housing. He cannot afford to do it. It just does not work out with high interest rates.
We are not looking for the government to spend more money. We are looking for the government to get out of the way as gatekeepers so that private enterprise could build more houses, 1.5 million across Canada, including in Quebec, and also in my province. That is what is required.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there was some interesting news out of the United Kingdom today.
It does have a Conservative government in power, and it is the Labour opposition that is tackling them for the exact same issues, complaining about the high cost of living and the fact that the Conservative government is not doing enough.
To the U.K. Conservative Party's credit, it announced today that it was going increase the windfall tax on oil and gas companies up to 35% because the people of Britain are tired of the way those oil and gas companies are making out like bandits.
Why do the U.K. Conservatives have the courage to do the right thing, while it is so lacking in Canada's Conservatives?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, of course Conservatives are always very concerned about fairer taxation, and the natural resources of our nation should be for the benefit of the nation.
That does not mean that we get in the way of what private enterprise wants to do. We also want to attract investors to invest in our natural resources and to build our big projects. That is what is going to make Canada strong.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the fall economic statement.
Recently, I had the honour and privilege to go to Washington with the defence committee. My friend from Calgary Rocky Ridge was also on the trip. I want to thank the ambassador publicly for her contributions to the utility of our trip. We could not have been treated better. We went to the Wilson Center, the Pentagon, the Atlantic Institute, and other places. With respect to defence contacts, Washington is, frankly, the centre of the geopolitical universe.
In addition to chairing the defence committee, I also co-chair the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, which harkens back to the times of Roosevelt and Mackenzie King. I want to assure hon. members that I was not chairing the board at that time, but can expect some push-back from the member for Kingston and the Islands on that. It is an opportunity, on an annual basis, for our respective militaries to exchange public policy issues, in particular, to update their own military policies. The American government has just updated its military policy and the Canadian government is about to update its “Strong, Secure, Engaged” policy, because, frankly, the threat environment has changed dramatically in the last 12 months.
Members may wonder why I would start a speech about the fall economic statement by referring to defence. Over the course of these many meetings, I started to joke that we really should rename the defence committee to the defence, trade and commerce committee, because the threats that Canada and other western nations are facing are not merely threats that relate to what we would describe as security and military threats. Rather, they are societal, economic and business threats, which are in fact far more insidious and multi-faceted than stand-alone military and security threats.
It was clear when we arrived in Washington that the Americans regard China as what is called a pacing threat. A pacing threat is a threat to which we have to maintain our technological military superiority. They clearly regard Russia as an acute threat, one that can literally do damage, but it does not penetrate into the threat analysis in the same way as does China. The pacing threat that China is creates a grey zone of conflict. This is where it relates to our fall economic statement, because in the grey zone of conflict, there is an economics challenge, a business challenge, a democracy challenge, an intellectual property challenge, a rule of law challenge, and we could isolate many more.
The PRC uses all of these areas of access points to undermine the very fabric of our society, to steal when it is appropriate to steal, to loot when it is appropriate to loot, to sow disinformation when it is appropriate to sow disinformation. Anything of any value gets returned to Beijing one way or another, which in turn takes those intellectual, scientific and technological advantages that we currently enjoy and uses them against our western society.
Those who briefed us expressed a real worry that we need to keep ahead. A cold war mentality is setting in, but unlike the Cold War mentality of the mutually assured destruction that existed between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. in times past, it is a top-to-bottom, layer-by-layer contest over anything of any value in western societies. There is a huge advantage for the Communist Party of China, because it is a closed society. Ours are relatively open societies, and the contest is heavily weighted in favour of a closed society that has a unitary view of dominance at all costs and wishes to turn us all into vassal states.
In sharing our intellectual resources, we will see our universities are relatively open. The concept in western society is that we share knowledge with a view to building knowledge, and the real question is whether we can actually continue that. The argument, if one was looking at this from a threat analysis standpoint, is that we cannot.
We have a patent regime that exists to protect investor and property rights. Again, a society that routinely abuses the patents that exist and takes no responsibility to compensate the creator is a system that may not continue to be able to exist.
Further, we have open real estate markets. We have heard a lot about the cost of living. What is, in part, driving the cost of living are massive infusions of monies from abroad, somewhat from China in particular, which drives up the prices of housing. In turn, that makes housing unaffordable to our own population and distorts our entire market system. That cannot continue.
We have an open investor system in mines and minerals. Again, we cannot allow state-owned enterprises to own critical minerals and critical mines.
We have an open democracy. We cannot continue with the misinformation and voter influence campaigns that are run from the People's Republic of China. When we hear the threat analysis from the people in the Pentagon and leading thinkers in all of these institutions, we realize all these layers of threat are significant to our way of life and significant to the prosperity that, frankly, is reflected in our fall economic statement.
These are just a few examples of the layered threats that go from a traditional military threat right through to abuse of our democracy.
I looked at the fall economic statement and compared it to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's view of the same set of numbers. Frankly, there is not a great deal of difference between the two. Occasionally the government is a bit more optimistic than the PBO and on occasion the PBO is a bit more optimistic than the government, but on several layers we are necessarily simply going to need to adjust.
Capital flows from the PRC are going to need to be restricted, and these capital flows will need to be replaced internally or from abroad, probably primarily from the U.S. In fact, the United States military has set up a fund, where it is available to invest in various technologies but also various mines and minerals that will be needed to keep ahead of a pacing threat.
I have a relative, for instance, who works at a leading research company, and the Department of Defense is actually one of the significant investors in that company. Rare earth minerals require a lot of capital and are critical to the 21st century economy. They are also critical to weapons technology.
Canada is treated as a domestic supplier for defence procurement. We will start to draw down on that status much more vigorously as we reshore, we nearshore and friend-shore critical investments.
I see that Madam Speaker is hinting that my time might be finished, so I will end here.
1149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was following along with the member's speech with the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge and we have just one observation to make. According to the government's own fall economic statement, within seven years we will pay more in debt interest payments than we pay right now for the defence department's annual budget.
If the member is as concerned as we are with the national security of Canada and ensuring that we can protect our country into the future, should the government not get control of debt interest payments and make sure it is not taking on even more debt, thus assuring that entire government departments will be gobbled up by debt interest payments to the big banks?
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to note that the government has actually handled its debt management quite shrewdly by buying, when the interest rates were low, long-term bonds. That has actually brought our management of debt into line.
I also encourage the hon. member to look at comparators with other nations. If there is any other nation that wishes to have the debt-to-GDP ratio that Canada has, I would be interested in the hon. member telling me who it might be.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will try to take no offence in the fact that my hon. colleague forgot to mention that I, too, was on that trip. I did get quite a lot out of it, of course. It was fascinating.
One of the things that our defence committee is studying is Arctic sovereignty and how Canada is investing into NORAD and its modernization and our role in that. We have heard a lot about how we can continue to be that partner in NORAD to help with the security that is at threat through the Arctic, to the Arctic and in the Arctic. While we are focusing as the defence committee on “through” and Canada's role in that, maybe the member could talk about some of the investments his government needs to make and has not made in the Arctic.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I offer to my colleague an insincere apology for not seeing her down at the other end of the chamber hiding behind her mask, but that is another thing altogether. I do appreciate her contribution to the defence committee.
The investments in the Arctic are necessarily going to be massive. As climate change takes hold, the reality is that the Arctic is opening up. Canadians need to get their heads around the notion that we are going to, not only as a defence initiative, invest heavily in the Arctic; but we also need to build ports and we need to use the facilities that we have. It is going to be extremely expensive to build the new early warning system, a massive technological enterprise.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned resource extraction and expansion of that. Alongside that critical mineral expansion, is there a plan from the Liberal government to protect indigenous women and girls from exploitation and man camps and all of those things that come alongside resource extraction that have never been considered by the government in the past?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the unique advantages that Canada has is the way in which particularly the Canadian military has integrated indigenous people into the Rangers and into the larger military. They, in effect, create our sovereignty presence in the north. There has been a great deal of conversation about how to do it appropriately. As the Arctic opens up, I see this as a unique opportunity to get it right with indigenous folks. Frankly, the testimony before the defence committee to date has been that we are starting to get it right and the consultations are real and meaningful, and I would like to be optimistic about it.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, on November 3, the Conservative leader made two clear demands on behalf of our party.
First, we wanted the Liberal government to stop the taxes. This included cancelling the planned tax hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax. Second, we wanted the Liberal government to stop the spending. Any new spending by Liberal ministers in the government must be matched by an equivalent saving to cut wasteful spending and stop the inflationary deficits that drive up the cost of everything for Canadians.
Unfortunately, neither of our demands was met by the government and, for that reason, I will be voting against this bill.
Simply put, the fall economic statement does not address the cost of living crisis facing Canadians right now. In fact, it makes the crisis worse. After seven years of the Liberal government, we pay more today for goods and services and get less. Groceries, gas, home heating and more are getting more and more expensive by the day because of the Liberals' reckless spending habits, the same reckless spending habits that have played a big role in driving up inflation.
Many of the inflationary issues and concerns we face are of the government's own making. For months we have been warning the Liberals that their out-of-control spending would lead to an increase in interest rates. The government responded by telling Canadians not to worry and to go ahead and take out big loans and mortgages, because interest rates would remain low for a long time and there would not be any negative consequences.
Well, fast-forward to now, and interest rates are increasing at the fastest rate in decades. Families that bought a home five years ago with a typical mortgage that is now up for renewal will pay $7,000 more a year. The Bank of Canada has signalled that interest rates will have to rise even higher to tackle inflation. Many Canadians will not be able to afford their mortgages and will risk losing their homes.
Through the government's bad spending habits, as inflation soars, so does our national debt. Since they were elected in 2015, the Liberal government has doubled our national debt, spending more than all previous governments combined since Confederation in 1867. Let that resonate for a moment.
Here are some recent examples of reckless Liberal spending contributing to inflation and our national debt.
The government wasted $54 million on the disastrous ArriveCAN app, yet it refuses to tell us who got rich off those massively excessive contracts.
The federal government paid out generous bonuses to Destination Canada executives when the tourism industry badly needs to recover.
The Liberal government recklessly spent $400 million on random testing at our borders, when medical experts said this policy was no longer needed.
Just last month, the Prime Minister spent $6,000 to stay for one night in a luxurious European hotel room.
Despite all the reckless and record Liberal spending, Canadians have less to show for it and are worse off because of it. Is it any wonder, then, that Canadians are struggling? The cost of groceries is up almost 11%. The cost of transportation is up over 10%. Gas is up over 22%. Next April, the excise tax on alcohol will increase by nearly 7%.
Under these deteriorating conditions, people work harder to try to get ahead, but they take less home because of the higher cost of the things they buy and the higher cost of punishing taxes to afford all this reckless Liberal spending. As a result of the Liberal government's incompetence, goods and services are more expensive and we have less money to pay for them.
How are Canadians reacting to this new reality? Families are downgrading their diets to cover the jump in food prices. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. Seniors are delaying their retirement and watching their life savings evaporate with inflation. Younger adults who did everything right are now trapped in 400-square-foot apartments or living in their parents' basements. No wonder Canadians feel like they have lost control. Many are falling behind, and others are struggling to get ahead.
The fall economic update shows that federal government revenues have increased by $40.1 billion this year alone. As Canadians suffer financially, the Liberal government is actually profiting from increased inflation that it generates and Canadians pay for.
How did it do that? Well, when Canadians pay higher prices on goods and services, they are also paying higher taxes. When they pay higher taxes, the government makes more money.
My NDP colleagues in this place have a history and reputation for taking issue with big corporate greed, yet when it comes to big government greed, apparently it is different and they turn a blind eye.
Rather than rein in the spending to begin slowing down the vicious cycle of spend and inflate, the Liberals drive the cycle of inflation even faster by spending more money at every opportunity they get. In addition to driving inflation, the federal government is also incurring tremendous amounts of debt. In fact, debt interest payment costs will have doubled this year. Next year, interest payments will be nearly as much as the Canada health transfer, and it is projected to be larger than what the government spends on the budget for the Department of National Defence.
Let us think about that. This is not good governance. It is dangerous governance. Anyone with a stake or interest in the good governance of our country should be alarmed and concerned.
Today, the federal government spends more money than any federal government before it. It is bigger, in terms of workforce, than ever before, yet what are the results? Millions of immigration applications are backlogged. Passport applications are severely delayed. New NEXUS and FAST applications are far behind schedule. The Phoenix pay system disaster continues. Government transparency is all but gone as journalists, researchers and Canadians cannot access federal information because the access to information system is broken in many federal departments.
Another irony I will point out is that despite the record number of federal employees and a track record of nothing working, this big-spending Liberal government spent $14.6 billion last year on outsourcing contracts to businesses outside of the public service to do public service work. This is yet another indication that the federal government is too big, which is causing it to break down.
Canadians are paying for reckless Liberal spending. We are not benefiting from it. In fact, future Canadian generations are at risk because of that and the debt the Liberal government has incurred. Canadians must realize that as the Liberals make more promises for a better tomorrow to detract us from the issues of today, none of the problems they have created, which Canadians now face, are getting fixed. After seven years of Liberal government incompetence in Ottawa, Canadians are realizing they are worse off today compared to when the Liberals first took office in 2015. We need real solutions to these real problems that Canadians are facing right now.
Instead of creating more cash, the Conservatives would create more of what cash buys. Enough with the talking, we need to get more homes built. We need to make energy more affordable, and to do so we would repeal anti-energy laws and get Canadian energy out to market. We would cut corporate welfare and axe the carbon tax. We would tackle climate change by making alternative energy cheaper, not by making Canadian energy more expensive. We would reform the tax system to ensure that whenever people work an extra hour, take an extra shift or earn an extra bonus they are always better off and would keep more of that dollar for themselves and their needs, not for the government's political agenda.
Conservatives have an ambitious vision and plan for when we form government after the next election, but for now, I am going to do my part by voting against Bill C-32.
1357 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have heard many of the member's comments several times before from members opposite.
The member mentioned that spending has not come down at all. There was an article on Global News recently about budget 2022 and Canada's incredible disappearing deficit, and that the deficit has been reduced significantly. It has shrunk by $275 billion in just two years.
I am wondering where you are getting your facts from when you say the deficit has not shrunk at all.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/17/22 4:36:47 p.m.
- Watch
I would remind the member that she should not use the word “you” or “your”.
The hon. member for Niagara Falls
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, looking at the government's own financial document, the recent statement, it shows the actual service levels for the debt it has created. Let us remember that Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, and Tiff Macklem, the current Governor of the Bank of Canada, said that inflation was caused by that extra $200 billion that was not related to COVID spending, which the Liberal government decided to make. It caused the inflationary pressures we are facing today.
Let us think about this. In the next several years, we are going to be spending more on servicing the debt than we will be on health transfers, which is $45 billion now. The Province of Ontario is spending $74 billion right now on health care services and the federal government only spends $45 billion. It is going to be spending more to service the debt on top of that in the coming years, more than on national defence. That is ludicrous and it needs to be fixed.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to be sure I understand what our colleague said. He talked about spending and spending. I understand that the Conservatives do not like spending and they see it as the source of inflation, which is not entirely untrue, but it is more complicated than they often present. This issue certainly deserves better than a childish campaign of hashtags with silly wordplay using the Prime Minister's name, even though it is not necessarily false. This could be in the middle of a discussion. However, we are living in a time when we also need spending. He talked about health spending.
Would the Conservatives respond favourably to Quebec's request for $28 billion in ongoing funding?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I mentioned what we are supporting. If governments are looking to spend, the policy we would be putting forward is this: For every dollar spent in new spending, one has to find a dollar in savings from other departments and other types of spending. That is to be used for the programs people deserve.
Let us think about this. We are spending almost $45 billion on interest to service the debt. That could be used for programs Canadians deserve and need right now, yet it is going to service the debt. That helps no Canadian.
We have to fix that. We have to get our economic conditions in a better state. The government has failed to do that.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was surprised the member did not mention wine, which is one of the industries both his riding and mine share. We do not make as much as the Niagara region, but we make better wine, of course.
I wanted to perhaps give him some time to expand on what we were hoping to see in this fall economic statement about support for the wine industry.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
