SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 175 - Mar/29/23

Mar/29/23 4:54:07 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

11 words

Secretary

Mar/29/23 4:54:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, it is “questions and comments”. Is that right? I do not have to ask a question, do I? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

31 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/23 4:54:16 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. leader of the official opposition.

8 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Mar/29/23 4:54:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it sad that the member has been standing up here regurgitating the phony talking points of the Prime Minister for eight years, and all he has is a fake position not even halfway up the House of Commons. The member has done nothing but reinforce the inflationist policies that are robbing the paycheques of hard-working people right across this country. On this side of the House, we stand for the common people, who actually do the work in this nation. We are going to lower the tax burden so that people can bring home more of what they earn. We are going to make this a country that works for the people who do the work, and that will happen as soon as we form a Conservative government.

133 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/29/23 4:55:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for his very good speech, especially the parts in French. As he knows, the French language has a very rich vocabulary. We have a recipe for shepherd's pie: beef, corn, potatoes. For big numbers we say: millions, billions, trillions. I invite him to repeat after me. He began his speech with a lecture about consistency by using the Minister of Finance's own words. He pointed out inconsistencies and told us that we could no longer believe what the government says because it is not consistent. Right after that, he quoted the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who he threatened to fire for incompetence a few months ago during the leadership race. When I openly say that someone is incompetent and that the first thing I would do when I become prime minister is fire him—I can assure members that I will not be prime minister in this place—I do not quote that person. I do not quote incompetent people who I want to fire. My question is the following: Does he still want to fire the governor of the central bank, whom he quoted in his speech? If he no longer wants to fire him, what thought process led to his change of heart?

223 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Mar/29/23 4:56:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, will I fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada? I have a few questions for the Bloc member. If a mechanic does not do his job, what happens? He gets fired, right? The mechanic gets fired. If an electrician does not do his job, what happens? He gets fired. If, instead of doing his job, which is to keep inflation at 2%, the Governor of the Bank of Canada borrows and prints money to fund the government's deficits and this leads to inflation that, now, is creating poverty among Canadians, yes, he will be fired. In the real world, if someone does not do their job, they get fired. I will take the Government of Canada into the real world by firing people who do not do their job.

134 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/29/23 4:57:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the question was why quote someone as an authority if they believe that person should be fired. However, that question was never answered. I have to say that it is a little hard to know where to start. Obviously we are starting from different positions and indeed a different way of understanding the situation the country finds itself in. The Leader of the Opposition had a lot of things to say. He said he would prohibit his ministers from participating in the World Economic Forum, I suppose as Stephen Harper did when he was prime minister, a time when he announced from Davos that he would be raising the retirement age in Canada from 65 to 67. That is what he did at the World Economic Forum. I am glad the member will not be sending anyone there so that when an announcement like that is made, the Conservatives can be held accountable in this place. The member then talked about a blue seal program, which is a good idea and one the Conservatives promised in 2006, but after nine years of government, they did nothing for it. Then he talked about giving $4 billion to the gatekeepers in this budget for housing. I presume the member means the “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy being funded to the tune of $4 billion in this budget. He had the audacity to criticize that after he invoked the example of the Squamish Nation, which is doing a good job of building housing. Should we be surprised that he does not understand what is in the budget when members of his party announced they were going to vote against it before they even saw it? No, probably not. However, the question is, after saying all of those things and given that he likes to point out people saying things and not following through, why should Canadians believe him when the government he was a part of did not act on the very things he is talking about today?

341 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Mar/29/23 4:59:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to the first question on why I would quote someone I want to fire, I quote members of the Liberal government all the time, and it is my plan to fire them in the next election. As for the blue seal, we did not promise that in 2006. We did promise to speed up foreign credential recognition, which we actually achieved. However, we need to go further, and in the last eight years, that has only gone backwards. We would bring in a blue seal standard, a merit-based standard, to test people who are professionals so they can qualify just like those who were born in this country. The member finally said that I simultaneously criticized the government's spending on housing while praising the first nations that removed gatekeepers to get things built. Let us be clear. The first nations in Vancouver did not build housing with money from government. It is private financing that builds the vast majority of housing in this country. We do not have a lack of financial ability to build housing. The Liberals are spending $89 billion on it. The problem is that we ban housing from being built in the first place. If we get the gatekeepers out of the way, we will build more homes and spend less money. It is common sense. Let us bring it home.

229 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Mar/29/23 5:00:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I speak in high schools, I ask the kids what they think about spending tens of billions of dollars on health care. I also ask what they think about spending tens of billions of dollars on debt. Then I get to say to them that they do not have to choose, because we do both. What message of hope do we have from this side of the House for our young people?

75 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Mar/29/23 5:01:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. The member is quite right in pointing out that every dollar we have to give to bankers and bondholders is money we cannot spend on hip replacements, heart surgeries and other necessary care in our hospitals. What is astonishing to me is the wealth transfer endorsed by the NDP and the Liberals. They have no problem taking money away from treasured national social programs to give it to the wealthiest bondholders and bankers. Even the most famous global left-wing economist, Piketty, from France, has pointed out that debt interest is a major wealth transfer from the working class to the super-rich. We are the only party against adding this debt. The other parties want to continue to add to it. We on this side of the House will bring hope to young people by capping spending and unleashing the productive forces of our talented people so we can produce more of what cash buys rather than just create more cash. We are going to make this a country that works for the people, where it does not matter if a person's name is Martin or Mohamad, Singh or Smith, Poilievre or Patel. As long as they are prepared to work hard, they can bring it home and achieve their dreams.

220 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Mar/29/23 5:02:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the ineffable member for Mirabel. Looking at the budget—

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/29/23 5:02:54 p.m.
Watch

Order. I would ask members who are talking to take their discussions outside. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on a point of order.

29 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/29/23 5:03:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Motion No. 2 regarding Senate amendments to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

65 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Mar/29/23 5:03:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted. They just announced yet another gag order, as I understand it. That is how eager the government House leader is to shut down debate yet again. Muzzling the House is unacceptable. About the budget— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue with my speech, even though there is a hubbub coming from the Conservatives. Excuse me, it was not the Conservatives. It was the Liberals. On page 25, there is a chart that shows the forecast for the government's projected debt, despite the large expenditures that were announced in this budget. What it shows is that, in 30 years, the federal debt will be virtually paid off. Here is the situation. There are so many resources at the federal level—that is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us year after year in every one of his studies—and Ottawa has so much leeway that it will be able to pay off its debt, the one it has had since Confederation, in about 30 years, at the rate things are going. At the same time, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that at the rate things are going, the provinces will no longer be able to provide the services they need to provide. They will be technically bankrupt in a few decades. This goes back to the unfortunate fiscal imbalance. The federal government is not sharing enough resources for the provinces to deliver the services that are in their jurisdiction and for Ottawa to do the same. In this budget, health care funding is six times less than what was requested by Quebec and the provinces. It is six times less. Quebec agreed to take that money because it was either that or nothing, but we know that it will not solve the problems in health care. This is a major issue. When we look at the deficit in the budget, it is $40.5 billion for this year. That is what was announced. However, when we look at lapsed funds, meaning the items that were voted in the House and those that did not need to be voted, for the last year available, the total is $41 billion. This year's deficits and the lapsed funds cancel each other out. Using this approach, we can say that despite this year's record spending, the budget is practically balanced because there is money in Ottawa. I consider that to be very problematic. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that if Ottawa wants to maintain a stable debt-to-GDP ratio, there is another $40 billion that it could use to lower taxes or increase spending or transfers. When we add those numbers together, there is $80 billion per year in fiscal room. Yesterday, I asked officials at the Department of Finance where to find the lapsed funds in the budget. They could not answer my question. They said it was very complicated and that those funds were not necessarily in the budget. At least, that is what I am given to believe until I get a more satisfactory answer. When Paul Martin was finance minister, he would underestimate the true revenues in his budget by approximately 2% every year. He would present a deficit, saying that we needed to tighten our belts and continue to cut funding for services to the provinces. He would say that we had a deficit and that things were not going well. At the end of the year, he always had good news to announce. He would say that, in the end, the situation was a lot better than it seemed. We figured out his trick. He was lowering the estimated revenues by 2% every year. What concerns me about this government is that it votes for more money than it needs for its expenditures, which means that it has money left over at the end of the year. When it presents the budget, there is a deficit, and things do not look good. Then, at the end of the year, it has more money than expected. According to the most recent data available, it is $40 billion a year. When we add that to the other $40 billion that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says is needed to maintain a stable debt-to-GDP ratio, that makes $80 billion. That is three times as much as Quebec and the provinces asked for to fix the health care funding problem and to provide adequate services to the public. Unfortunately, this goes back to the sorry issue of the fiscal imbalance that I was talking about. Ottawa has more resources than it needs to provide its services, while it is the opposite in the provinces. Here is the proof: Chapter six of the budget says that, with the snap of its fingers, the government is going to spend $20 billion less a year by cutting expenses related to McKinsey, ministerial travel, and so on. The government is going to save $20 billion a year doing that. It is as easy as that. Compare that to the austerity budget of the Couillard government in Quebec. The government chose to cut homework help at elementary schools to save hundreds of millions of dollars, which sounds like peanuts by comparison. That is not on the same level whatsoever. Here in Ottawa, it is easy to do things to spend less, but in the provinces, to save a dollar, they are no longer trimming the fat. They are down to the bone. That is the fiscal imbalance. The fiscal imbalance means that Ottawa is not being careful with its spending, that it is not controlling costs. The examples I am about to give are not exact comparisons, but they will put things in perspective. When Ottawa handles an EI case, it costs two and a half times more than when Quebec handles a social services case. It is not exactly the same, but it gives us an idea. It costs this government two and a half times more to provide a service that is similar to one provided by Quebec. It costs Ottawa four times more to issue a passport than it does for Quebec to issue a driver's licence. Everyone remembers the passport crisis. Perhaps there is a bit more checking involved, but again, these examples put things in perspective. Ottawa is not careful about costs because it has plenty of resources. I was very sad to see that funding for health care allocated in the budget is six times lower than the amount needed to provide better services in Quebec. Since the provinces do not have sufficient resources, Ottawa is using this as an opportunity to buy itself areas of jurisdiction. We know that Quebec and the provinces are responsible for health care. Here, the coalition is putting a dental care system in place. The Constitution, which we have not signed and that was imposed on us, states that the provinces are responsible for dental care. Ottawa thinks it has so much money that it will implement this. Ottawa is buying areas of jurisdiction. At Confederation, the choice of having a federation was a historic compromise to get my nation to embark on this adventure. That way, we would have our government at least, which would be sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction. Since my election, no matter what parties are in power, there is always a move toward centralization, toward the famous legislative union that Macdonald dreamt about. In the context of that centralization, Ottawa would be above other governments, and my government, my National Assembly, would no longer be sovereign in its areas of jurisdiction. When I read the budget, that is what I see. Ottawa wants to create more programs in areas under the jurisdiction of other governments. Meanwhile, it is bungling the services that it is responsible for. Take employment insurance, for example. We are experiencing inflation and there is a risk of a recession. The budget doubles the GST tax credit, which is a measure that we support. However, other than that measure, there is nothing to indicate that we are in a crisis. Given the risk of a recession, it is urgent that the EI system be reformed. What is this government doing? What is the Minister of Finance doing? They are doing nothing at all. If the country goes into a recession when the EI system is broken, it will not be good. What is worse is that Ottawa has decided to cover all of the costs incurred during the pandemic, except the deficit in the EI fund. It is making workers pay higher premiums to pay it off, even though when there was a surplus in the EI fund in the Paul Martin years, the government was dipping into it to pay off the debt. That is unacceptable.

1500 words

All Topics

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

Mar/29/23 5:13:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting and very important speech. I would like to ask the hon. member from the province of Quebec, one of the signatories of the health care agreements, a question. We have come to an agreement with all 10 provinces and territories. The federal government will have an additional $198 billion, in total, of health care spending over the next 10 years to the provinces. With the negotiations for the child care agreements, I obviously salute the province of Quebec. It was a first mover on a child care program for its residents. I ask my hon. colleague across the way if he is not in favour of the health care agreement the Province of Quebec signed with the federal government, which is contained within budget 2023.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Mar/29/23 5:14:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple: No, because it is not enough. It is six times less than what Quebec and the provinces are asking for to prop up the health care system. What is Ottawa doing with this agreement? It is stabilizing the proportion of support it provides to the health care system. In 2015, when this government was elected, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending. With what is being proposed, it will still be 24% in 10 years. To restore fiscal balance a bit, it needs to be 35%, because it is not enough. The Government of Quebec told us that given the choice between this and nothing, it decided to take this, but it is not enough and it is not going to solve anything.

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Mar/29/23 5:15:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy listening to my colleague from Joliette because he is very well versed in public finance. I congratulate him on his speech and thank him. I would also like to remind members that the member for Joliette and I were elected for the first time in 2015. He will remember that, in 2015, the members opposite got elected by saying that they would run three small deficits and balance the budget in the fourth year. It was true in 2015. That is the reason they were elected. Over the course of eight years, there has been one colossal deficit after another. Today, we have a $43‑billion deficit and $44 billion in debt servicing costs, which is twice as much as last year. My colleague will be pleased with my question, because it will indulge his sovereignist inclination. Here, in the House of Commons, he spoke about “my government” and “my parliament”. He could have gone to the National Assembly of Quebec, given that elections were held in Quebec a few months ago, but he decided to stay here. I do not have a problem with that because he is a nice guy. As a sovereignist, what does he think of the attitude of this government, which is intruding in the jurisdiction of health care by becoming involved in child care services and dental care, among other things?

237 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Mar/29/23 5:16:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I salute the hon. member in return. I enjoy serving with him in the House of Commons. I am here to defend the interests of my nation and to make sure that its priorities are at least heard, even if they are not always respected. This is obvious from the budget and from the examples that my hon. colleague gave. The point I would like to make here is that, yes, we have a government that spends recklessly. Yes, we have a government that interferes in areas of jurisdiction that are not its own, while failing to look after its own affairs. My point is that, despite all of this and despite the $40‑billion deficit, it still has fiscal flexibility in the short, medium and long term. As I said, the $40‑billion deficit this year is offset by lapsed funding. On top of that, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, if we maintain the debt-to-GDP ratio, that is another $40 billion of fiscal flexibility. That is three times what was needed to pay for health care.

186 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Mar/29/23 5:17:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member for Joliette regarding the problems with the current EI system. I would like him to talk a little more about the importance of a good EI system in a country that is facing a recession.

43 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Mar/29/23 5:17:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his question and his legitimate concerns. The government has been promising to reform the EI system since 2015. Since last fall, analysts and economists have been telling us to be careful because there is a risk of a recession. Whether big or small, there is going to be a recession. We know that the most important automatic stabilizer in a recession is employment insurance. We know that the EI system is not working. Just four out of 10 people who lose their job are covered. Things have gotten so bad that Minister Morneau suspended the program at the outset of the pandemic because it just was not working. He decided instead to implement costly, improvised short-term programs. That cost a fortune and it was not effective. The EI system needs to be reformed now.

148 words