SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 172 - Mar/23/23

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC)

Mar/23/23 10:21:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today with another opportunity to warn the government about the course it is on. Winston Churchill is famous for saying, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”, and he was right. We can just look at the Liberal government. High taxes, high inflation and corporate socialism are not an innovation of today's Liberals. It has been going on for years. This is a lefty obsession: raising the taxes of everyday Canadians, and then turning around and spending so much money that the government runs massive inflationary deficits and runs up the debt. The only people who benefit are the wealthy Liberal insiders and their corporations. In the 1970s, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau did this exact same thing. At the time, he spent more than all his predecessors combined, driving up Canada's debt and leaving in his wake nearly two decades of high inflation and high interest rates. Canadians are turning in their house keys, taking on more household debt just to survive and worrying about whether they can afford to heat their homes, buy groceries or gas up their cars. It sounds very familiar. It is another example of history repeating itself. We know that, just as in the days of Pierre Trudeau, the current Prime Minister created the inflation and cost of living crisis we see today with his out-of-control spending. While he got Tiff Macklem and the Bank of Canada to cover his massive deficits with money printing, he did nothing to address the inflation concerns or ease the inflationary pressures of higher taxes. Instead, the Prime Minister passes on the taxes. He takes from everyday Canadians and spends their money on high-priced consultants and Liberal insiders who get cushy government contracts. The concept of money printing and inflation is not even the invention of the Liberals of the 1970s. In the 1700s, French banker and economist Richard Cantillon observed that the rich and the insiders get all the benefits when the government increases the money supply. In those days, the rich and the insiders were the aristocracy closest to the French king. When a gold mine was discovered and the supply of gold increased, Cantillon saw that the value of gold did not increase, and neither did the wealth of the everyday people. Instead, the value of gold diminished. Instead of one gold coin purchasing a loaf of bread, it now took two, yet the wealthy gold mine owner and the landowner growing grain for bread were better off. They could keep spending money on luxuries, while everyday people fell further behind. Today, Canada sees the same thing happening. We are not just witnessing the 1970s repeat themselves. We are seeing fundamental economics return with a vengeance. Leave it to the Liberal government to ignore an at least 300-year-old lesson in inflation. Today's aristocracy is the ones benefiting from the $600 billion spent in the last eight years. These insiders enjoy privileged access to billions of tax dollars stashed away in Liberal programs like the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the Canada growth fund. These are the same insiders who will benefit from the so-called “just transition”, which will eliminate hundreds of thousands of good-paying, responsible Canadian energy jobs. They are the same insiders who will benefit from the $21.4 billion the Prime Minister is handing out to consultants like McKinsey, and from what his ministers are handing out to their besties in cushy contracts. These insiders are the same ones getting rich off the inflationary deficits and wasteful spending. Do not get me wrong. As a proud Albertan and Conservative, I support the free market and individuals' ability to make and use their money the way they want to. What I have a problem with is when the Liberal government takes more out of the pockets of everyday Canadians and in some quasi-corporate socialist way redistributes these tax dollars to the rich and the Liberal insiders. This is such a disregard for freedom, free enterprise and Canadians' money. The blatant payoffs to Liberal friends using taxpayers' money only make life more expensive for the rest of us. As the Leader of the Opposition has clearly explained to this House, just as Cantillon observed 300 years ago, it is this type of government waste that causes the people to suffer while the rich insiders have never had it so good. What is most frustrating is how the Liberals cannot see that the increasing cost of government is tied to the increasing cost of living. That is what I take issue with. In the study the finance committee overtook, despite the warnings and voices of everyday Canadians pleading with us to address the real issue, the cost of living crisis, the Liberal-NDP costly coalition joined forces to make recommendations that will not restore affordability. In our dissenting report, Conservatives were clear: The Liberal government must rein in its inflationary deficit spending and address its ballooning debt. We reiterated our calls for no new taxes and no new spending, including all planned tax hikes, such as the tripling of the carbon tax, the second carbon tax, the luxury tax, the escalator tax on alcohol, and the payroll tax increases. We called on the Liberal government to adopt the pay-as-you-go law the Conservative leader proposed, which was endorsed by the Minister of Finance in a letter to her own ministers last fall. The reality is that, after eight years of the current Prime Minister, Canadians are out of money and the Liberals are out of touch. We cannot saddle future generations with borrowing for current spending and deficits. Interest rates are the highest they have been since the 2008 global recession. One in five Canadians is skipping meals, out of money or accessing charities for basic needs. Newcomers are being driven out of this country. One in five newcomers wants to pack up and leave. The number one cause of that is the high cost of living in this country. Mortgages and rents have doubled since 2015. The average rent across Canada's 10 biggest cities is now over $2,200 a month, compared to almost $1,200 a month in 2015. Mortgages are now above $3,100 compared to $1,400 a month in 2015. All the while, Canada has the lowest homes per capita in the G7, and the lack of supply has home prices still inflated 30% above prepandemic levels. This is the result of eight years of out-of-control Liberal spending and increasing tax hikes. That is why Conservatives are calling for budget 2023 to reverse the economic mismanagement brought on by the Prime Minister. Canada needs to stop printing money and, instead, make more of what money buys; axe the damaging and failed carbon tax, especially for farmers, so they can produce the food that Canada and the world need; remove gatekeepers to free up and speed up permits for homes, so that people can afford homes and so that job-creating energy projects can get built, which will create paycheques at home in Canada. By addressing inflationary deficit spending and high taxes, we can bring home lower prices and more powerful paycheques so that hard work pays off again. This pre-budget consultation report fails to address the inflation and the cost of living crisis, and fails to provide real solutions. That is why, while I am on my feet, I move that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: the 10th Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Friday, March 10, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance with instruction that it amend the same so as to recommend that the government create a “Blue Seal” National Professional Testing Standard to quickly license professionals, like doctors and nurses, who prove they are qualified, and that anyone who has passed the common national test for their profession would get a “Blue Seal” certificate allowing them to work in any province or territory that chooses to join the Blue Seal Standard.

1386 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/23/23 10:31:19 a.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

16 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Mar/23/23 10:32:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if government programs were responsible for inflation, we would see everybody up and down the line pinching pennies to get by. Could the hon. member explain why big food is making record profits and why big oil is making record profits, while people are jacking up the cost of rent and the price of houses because of the lack of supply? This has nothing to do with government actions. In fact, I would ask the member whether or not it really justifies government action, in terms of regulation, because the free market has clearly been responsible for these distortions.

101 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Mar/23/23 10:32:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised. I should not be surprised, actually. The Liberals make it seem like it is never their fault, and it is indeed. It is the government's wasteful spending that has put Canadians in a position where they are pinching pennies. They are literally barely hanging on. We are seeing 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks in a single month. One in five Canadians is skipping meals in this country today. When my family came here, we came here for a better future, like many other immigrants are coming today. However, because of the government's reckless spending with the support of its costly coalition partner, the NDP, more and more families want to leave this country, not stay here and contribute to it. The government needs to rein in its spending and support Canadians by lowering their taxes so they can afford to eat and to heat their homes.

157 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Mar/23/23 10:34:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if I could sum up my colleague's speech I would say, “cut, cut, cut”. It reminds me of the “triple, triple, triple” quip we used to hear. Unfortunately, after the pandemic, some people have been left out in the cold, left to fend for themselves. It has been very tough for many people, including the homeless. In Quebec, homelessness is becoming quite visible in cities where there never used to be any. We need to deal with this. Last week, I met with representatives from the Réseau Solidarité Itinérance du Québec, who shared what they are looking for in the next budget. They are asking the federal government for a 30% increase in investments in the reaching home program to prevent and reduce homelessness in Quebec. We know that budgets were increased during the pandemic, which helped, but they have returned to prepandemic levels. That is not right. The demand is still there. They are also asking for the annual indexing of social housing and a $3-billion investment. This is super important. At the end of the day, we want homeless populations to be housed. What does my colleague think of these demands?

208 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Mar/23/23 10:35:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's question gives me the opportunity to talk about the Conservative plan for getting more houses built in this country, including affordable housing. Our Conservative leader recently made a proposal with respect to the 15% of federal buildings that are completely empty in this country right now. We could convert those, by working with municipalities, into affordable housing and houses. We could create more units in this country. We also need to make sure we are getting the municipal gatekeepers out of the way so we can get more houses built. We need to get more people into more houses. There is a huge supply issue, which the Liberal government has failed to address after eight years. It has caused rents to double, and it is the same thing with mortgages. Conservatives would get more houses built in this country for those who are most vulnerable and need them the most.

155 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Mar/23/23 10:35:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about selling off 15% of government buildings to ensure there is adequate housing for Canadians. We used to build 25,000 co-op units a year before the Liberals killed this in 1992. The Conservatives did not build any. In fact, under the Conservative government, rents and property prices doubled. My colleague talked about supply. Would he agree that, when selling those government assets, it should be certain and there should be covenants in place so they go to non-market housing? Nowhere in the world has free market solved the housing crisis when there is a housing shortage. I would like my colleague to agree that they should go to non-market housing in our country.

122 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Mar/23/23 10:36:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what we need to do is get the municipal gatekeepers out of the way and work with our municipalities so more housing units can get built in this country. As someone who came from the home-building industry, I think that, with more supply, we could bring down the cost of rents and provide more units in this country to address the shortage, which is not only driving people out of home ownership but also leading to more and more people wanting to leave. The largest portion of paycheques goes to housing right now. That is unfair to the newcomers and the Canadians who are living here. Conservatives would address that.

113 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/23/23 10:37:28 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-26

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about the important issue of finances and the direction in which the government has been leading Canada in order to support Canadians in every region of the country. Before I get into that, I want to quickly make reference once again to the Conservatives' bringing forward a concurrence motion in order to prevent government legislation from being debated. In fact, today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-26, which is about cybersecurity, something important to Canadians. However, it is not the first time we have seen the Conservative Party show disrespect for important issues Canadians want us to deal with. In fact— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

120 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/23/23 10:38:25 a.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that there will be 10 minutes of questions and comments, so they will have an opportunity to ask questions then. I would ask members to please hold off on any of their comments and maybe jot them down so they do not forget them. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

53 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/23/23 10:38:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to that particular point, I can assure the members opposite that I will hang around for the 10 minutes of questions and answers, which is unlike what we saw yesterday when I attempted to ask questions and there was no one around able to answer the questions or prepared to answer the questions. What I am referencing—

62 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Mar/23/23 10:39:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member opposite knows he cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. I would ask him to withdraw his previous statement.

29 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/23/23 10:39:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to be very clear, when a member rises on a point of order and causes the Speaker to stand, it does not take away from the time allocation a member is supposed to be given for their speech. With that in mind, I would suggest that I did not make reference to any individual at all. The member is just assuming, correctly, that it was Conservatives who abandoned the chamber so I could not actually ask the questions.

88 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/23/23 10:39:37 a.m.
Watch

I would just ask individuals to please be mindful of the words they use. Again, I did not hear the hon. parliamentary secretary speak directly about a specific member, so I just want to, again, remind members to be judicious with the words they use. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

49 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/23/23 10:40:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thought it was actually good news that I am prepared to answer for the comments I make in the chamber, because not all members can actually say that, as we witnessed yesterday when I attempted to ask questions of Conservative members of Parliament and they chose not to answer those questions. I would like to—

59 words

Chamber

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Mar/23/23 10:40:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member opposite knows that he cannot directly or indirectly reference the presence of a member in the chamber. He is directly talking about the presence or not of a member who was not here yesterday. When we were having a debate, a member had to leave the House, and now the parliamentary secretary is bringing it up again. That is twice in the last 10 seconds that he has done it. The member needs to withdraw the statement.

86 words

Chamber

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/23/23 10:40:46 a.m.
Watch

Again, I want to remind members to be careful with respect to how they use their time that they have in the House. I did not hear the parliamentary secretary speak about a specific member. Generally, that is when we take issue with specific comments made. Again, I want to ask members not to mention anybody who was or was not in the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

68 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/23/23 10:41:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us try this again. I believe, just for confirmation, that I have 19 minutes left in my comments.

21 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Mar/23/23 10:41:29 a.m.
Watch

I do want to remind the member that his time is not being eaten away by these points of order. The clock is stopped every time.

26 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Mar/23/23 10:41:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that the point we are discussing right now is extremely important. You just indicated that we may not refer to the presence or the absence of specific MPs in the House. I would like to have some clarification from you and from the Table. For example, if I say that a significant number of Liberals are not in the House right now, am I making a faux pas in the House? It is essential that I get an answer to this question.

87 words