SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 179 - Apr/18/23

Apr/18/23 1:17:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague for Repentigny has been up and down so often to talk about carbon capture technology she must be getting dizzy. Maybe my Liberal colleagues should have a word with their speech writers, because everything they say is something they have said before. Here we are, still talking about this technology, when better-informed countries across the world are moving away from it, now that it is known to be ineffective. The United States is dropping its incentives to use carbon capture technology, while we are adding more. I would like to understand the logic of it all. The government says it wants to fight climate change, yet it encourages the oil companies with measures like this one.

121 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari

Apr/18/23 1:18:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I would like to remind my colleague is the fact that our approach is a comprehensive multipronged approach. Yes, we are talking about investing and providing tax incentives for organizations that need to focus on carbon capture, but we are also focusing on incentivizing companies that are focusing on solar, wind and renewable energy, as well as others, such as nuclear energy.

65 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Apr/18/23 1:19:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Joe Biden has just announced a dramatic shift in EV investment, that they will have 67% of American cars running electrical within nine years. That is extraordinary, but what that is also going to mean is that if Canada does not keep up, we will be left behind. However, this government continues to put massive investments into the Trans Mountain pipeline, over $30 billion. If we are looking at 67% of vehicles in the United States going to electric within nine years, we are going to have a lot of stranded assets. I want to ask my colleague why the government continues to subsidize Trans Mountain when it has been proven to be a money loser. This is taxpayers' money that we are not going to get back and we are now $30 billion-plus and rising on Trans Mountain.

142 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari

Apr/18/23 1:20:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, well, yes, there is an investment made in the Trans Mountain pipeline. However, let us talk about the investment that has been made in hydrogen. Let us talk about the investment that we are making in critical minerals. Let us talk about the investment that we are making in ensuring that there are electrical batteries being developed close to the facilities where these critical minerals are being extracted. The most important thing: let us talk about other countries and other organizations from across the world that are making the conscious decision to come to Canada and set up their leading clean tech and EV battery plants here, such as Volkswagen.

112 words

Mr. Terry Dowdall (Simcoe—Grey, CPC)

Apr/18/23 1:20:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to budget 2023 on behalf of the great people of Simcoe—Grey. I was hoping to have the opportunity today to congratulate the budget for balancing itself, but alas it appears we all must still wait for that miracle. Not a day goes by when I am not contacted by a constituent who is at wit's end. Mortgages have gone up by thousands of dollars a year, and groceries, especially the healthiest of foods, cost hundreds more each week. Gas, which most people outside the major cities rely on to get to work, costs hundreds of dollars more per month. Home heating fuel, again, is hundreds more per month this winter. When one adds it all up, it can cost the average family a thousand or more dollars a month just to live in this country. Many cannot afford that, as they were just getting by before the government took office. For those who can get by still, it means having to spend all of their paycheques just to survive. RESPs are not being topped up. Retirement savings accounts are left to languish, and family emergency funds are being used to pay for the carbon tax and inflationary spending of the Liberal government. Very few are enjoying life like they used to prior to 2016. Sunny ways have turned to dark days for many in our middle class. We have seen record spending, record deficits and now record debt. However, the pain sure is not being felt by all the Liberals and their friends. There are $6,000-a-night hotels and governor generals trying to outdo one another with extravagance. While regular Canadians are digging deep in their pockets for an extra buck, Liberal ministers are handing out millions of dollars in contracts to friends and family, just like Santa Claus on Christmas morning. Liberals really have no idea how much pain there is in the country right now, and they think shuffling a few hundred bucks here and there is going to make it all better. Liberals would have us believe we have never had it so good. Their arrogance knows no bounds. Constituents who contact me with concerns about making ends meet run the gamut of Canada's demographics. These are younger people trying to make it through school; middle-class families struggling with rapidly rising house prices, transportation costs and trying to put a meal on the table; and new immigrants trying to find a rental in my area while working in a service industry job. I hear from them all and listen to the challenges they face, which are directly due to the government's economic mismanagement. The group I hear the most from are seniors. Seniors feel ignored by the government, and they are hurting. Seniors on fixed incomes are especially feeling the pinch. OAS increases are laughable, as they are just a couple of bucks. That does not help to pay for the increase in home heating or groceries, thanks to the carbon tax. Cancelling the carbon tax and cutting their income tax would be a great way to move forward. Instead, the Liberals will spend $2.5 billion more to create a gimmicky grocery rebate that does not need to be spent on groceries. It does not matter, because one does not need to show a receipt. It sounds like a good idea, but is it? Not really. The grocery rebate means $225 in a one-time payment for eligible seniors. If one thinks this cures the affordability crisis facing Canadians, one may also think the budget can balance itself. That is 62¢ a day. I know the Prime Minister does not do his own grocery shopping, so he may not be aware of how much groceries went up because of the carbon tax, but 62¢ is less than the increase in a loaf of bread. Thanks to the government, an eligible senior who gets groceries once a week will have an extra $4.34 in their pocket to cover the increased cost. That does not come close to helping the seniors who reach out to me and my office. Members need not take my word for it. Here is what some seniors in my riding have told me. Mary Glencross says, “Instead of the government giving people $250 to cover groceries, perhaps they could lower all the taxes we pay on natural gas.” Giovanni Scianni says, “Please support Canadians' call for a halt of tax increases. It's becoming more and more difficult to afford basic necessities to sustain a modest standard of living.” Eva Johnson says, “Please try to stop all these unnecessary taxes. I am a senior. We don't seem to get a tax break ever.” Ken Grubbe says, “As a senior citizen living on a fixed income, I find these increases to be both appalling and unconscionable.” Marie Romanelli says, “I know it's a choice for many whether to go into the grocery store or to heat their house. I am strongly opposed to all these extra taxes that hurt the average Canadian, including myself.” Bruce Murray says, “Being on a fixed income makes it very difficult when budgeting your finances every month. The Federal Carbon Tax has increased 57% compared to my November 2021 bill and this is utterly ridiculous and must be eliminated, once and for all!” Brian Rosenkrands says, “The Liberal government keeps insisting they are helping Canadians, but for some seniors the many years of waiting for a decent rise in their OAS payment, and the government's insistence to go ahead with all the increased taxes at this period in time, is putting some in jeopardy.” Finally, Mark Holmes says, “When is this government going to raise our CPP and OAS payments so we're ALL not living below the poverty line?” The audacity of anyone on that side talking about making life more affordable is absolutely laughable. In essence, the government is proud that it has created a food stamp program that would not actually help people afford food, but it sure indicates the damage its policies have brought on all Canadians. When the government was elected, it talked about modest, short-term deficits. We in the opposition were skeptical, and we said so. The deficits continued, with no plan in sight to balance the budget at all. Then the pandemic hit and people panicked. The government took some action. It was not always successful, and it was deaf to concerns from the opposition about the poor design of many programs. We all remember the rental assistance program, in which the landlord for a business needed to approve their tenant's application so that he or she could get no money. That program lasted for months without being corrected, but overall, most Canadians were prepared to let the government spend some money to help Canadians get by. Small deficits turned into record deficits pretty quickly with this government in charge. The pandemic is over, and it has been for a while, yet the government keeps spending. In fact, most costs of all new spending in this budget work out to $4,300 for every single Canadian family. This is 10 times what an eligible family of four would get via the new grocery rebate. Put another way, the Liberals are spending 10 times more on their own priorities than what they are putting back in the pockets of working families, and 20 times what they are providing to seniors. Often when I say that the government needs to eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt, people will ask me, “What about health care?” The cost of servicing Canada's enormous debt continues to grow and will continue to do so as long as we the Liberal government is in power. In fact, the Prime Minister has added more debt than the previous 22 prime ministers combined. Canada's federal debt is now expected to be $1.22 trillion this year. That is $81,000 per household here in Canada, and the debt needs to be paid. Debt-servicing costs after seven years of Liberal fiscal management are predicted to be $43.9 billion this year. That is a lot of money going to service a debt that could have been spent on much-needed services, such as health care. The Liberals recently concluded a health care funding agreement with provinces, which was substantially less than what the provinces needed and what they were asking for. However, listening to the Liberals toot their own horn, one would think the provinces never had it so good, either. In Ontario, Canada's most populous province, additional federal investments in health care will equal $8.4 billion over 10 years. The Liberal debt-servicing payments are $43.9 billion per year, so the Liberals will be spending five times more per year servicing the debt than they will be providing in new support to Ontarians for health care. That is a lot of hospital beds or nurses that will not be going to Collingwood General and Marine Hospital. That is, perhaps, a brand new wing that will not be built for Stevenson Memorial Hospital in Alliston. Reckless spending has consequences. Running endless deficits has consequences. Record debt has consequences. The government has its priorities wrong. It keeps spending money to keep various interest groups satisfied, to help maintain its tenuous grip on power and to keep the leader of the fourth party in its pocket. It may work for a little while longer, but the average Canadian is tired of paying the price for the government's reckless spending and inability to get its fiscal house in order. There are 40 billion reasons to vote against this budget, but I have only one vote. That vote will be against this inflationary budget.

1672 words

All Topics

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

Apr/18/23 1:30:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is so much to unpack there, but let us just talk about a couple of issues. First of all, at the beginning of his speech the member talked about the grocery rebate being a gimmicky thing the government has come up with. Let us not lose sight of the fact that it is a top-up to the existing GST rebates that are given to Canadians. We know what the Conservatives did last time we introduced that. First they said they would not vote for it. Then maybe there was some pressure, but they backpedalled a bit and said that they would vote for it. If the member wants to call it a gimmick, that is fine. If Conservatives want to say that we are just trying to package up the GST rebate as a gimmick, that is fine. However, let us not forget, that at the end of the day, what they would be voting against would be giving more of that GST rebate to Canadians. Could the member explain to the House why he was in favour of it recently, when the Conservatives did their flip-flop, but now, he suddenly does not want to see it? How is the GST rebate this time not as beneficial to Canadians as it was the last time?

220 words

Mr. Terry Dowdall

Apr/18/23 1:32:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate that it is a gimmicky rebate for the simple reason that we should not need to do that for Canadians. We now have 1.5 million people visiting food banks because of the policies of the Liberal government. We have people who need assistance. There is no doubt about it. However, all these increases have been created by Liberal policies. In my riding, whenever I am going out to see people, and I think maybe the member opposite should spend a lot of time doing that, I hear that that kind of money is not going to make a big difference when there is a carbon tax. On top of that, the government could lower the taxes for seniors. Those are the things I am hearing in my office. I would not be too proud of the fact that the government is giving a grocery rebate.

151 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Apr/18/23 1:32:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech. He mentioned the government's deficit. What I have noticed is that the government announces spending, but does not manage to spend what it announces. In 2021‑22, they failed to spend the $38 billion they announced. In 2022‑23, they failed to spend the nearly $40 billion that was announced and we can expect the same amounts in the current budget. In short, the federal government announces deficits when in reality it is squirrelling away significant sums of money in its coffers. In the meantime, it refuses to increase seniors' pensions, to modernize the Employment Insurance Act and to meet the demands of Quebec and the Canadian provinces on health transfers. What does my colleague think of the federal government perpetuating the fiscal imbalance to the detriment of Quebec, the Canadian provinces and their populations?

150 words

Mr. Terry Dowdall

Apr/18/23 1:33:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, when we talk about announcements, I have never seen a government with more announcements and no delivery. It happens all the time. My office gets bombarded whenever the government makes an announcement, and then my staff is busy because there is no meat to what it is saying. I agree with the member that a lot of money is not spent. We could look at different departments each and every year. I am on the veterans affairs committee, and a lot of that money that has been earmarked for programs is not spent. I also think we need to respect provinces. We could do a lot better if we worked together, and we would be able to accomplish a lot more and solve a lot of the problems that we have here in Canada, from housing to health care. We need to work together and have open discussions, respecting one another. However, once again, we have a Prime Minister who likes to create division in all things, including with the provinces.

176 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/18/23 1:34:50 p.m.
Watch

Before I go to the next question, I want to remind all members to make sure their phones are on silent mode. A phone dinged a while ago, and it was problematic for the interpreters. We want to make sure that we prevent any hardships for them. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

55 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Apr/18/23 1:35:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always quite entertaining to listen to the Conservatives tell us how much they care about seniors, veterans, single moms and working people. It is like being invited down to the riverbank to have a picnic with a crocodile. Maybe they have changed the way they do business, but if we look at historic records, we know it is not a good idea. Let us talk about the member's love for seniors. Let us remember Stephen Harper, who announced this big transformation in Canada. He was going to go after the public funding of seniors' pensions, and he was going to raise the seniors' pension age. Where did he do that? He did not talk to seniors. He went to Davos. Stephen Harper went to the World Economic Forum to announce that he was going after Canadian seniors. Would the hon. member explain why Stephen Harper thought it was better to tell Davos that he was targeting seniors than to have the guts to talk to senior citizens, face to face?

175 words

Mr. Terry Dowdall

Apr/18/23 1:36:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member still watches a black and white TV, but there are colour TVs now and we have moved forward as a country. I believe that seniors are extremely important. As I said, during the Harper days either, we never saw 1.5 million people at food banks. Quite frankly, I am not sure why we are talking about the past. Let us solve the problems today for all Canadians.

77 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/18/23 1:36:38 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind members that if they want to have discussions or cross-talks, they should take them out to the lobby to allow respect for the person who has the floor. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Thornhill.

40 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Apr/18/23 1:37:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today, I would like to add a voice that has been missing from this debate. We talk a lot about what is happening right now, what is going on in our modern political world, what the Prime Minister said yesterday or what was in the headlines this morning, but there is another perspective that we need to consider that is equally important. More than just thinking about the present, we need to think about the future once in a while. The choices we make here directly impact the country that we pass on to the next generation, the nation that it will grow up in, live in and inherit. In many ways, the biggest job is not the making the decisions that will impact us in the next 10 days, but rather the ones that are going to affect our country in the next 10 years. Our most sacred obligation is to build a country that is stronger than the one we have today, to build a future that is bright and that is prosperous and to leave the next generation unencumbered by bad decisions. To that end, the budget is one of the most important documents that we consider in Parliament because it sets out the long-term trajectory, or at least it is supposed to do that. However, it is clear that this is no plan for the future. It is clear that the Liberals are not even thinking about it. What do we see under the Prime Minister? We see record-high projected debt. We see record lows in projected growth, the lowest in the G7, the lowest in decades. We see record inaction in protecting our environment through some bizarre obsession of punishing the consumer; inaction on building new housing or preserving the most basic of freedoms, the freedom to work hard and get ahead. The finance minister had a brief epiphany months before presenting what was seemingly the opposite of what she presented weeks ago. Last year she said this, “Our economy will slow. There will be people whose mortgage rates will rise. Businesses will no longer be booming. Our unemployment rate will no longer be at its record low. That's going to be the case in Canada.” We agree. Then the budget happened. A reasonable prescription for slowing growth would of course be smaller deficits, lower taxes, more competition, less regulation, without massive subsidies. What we got, however, were bigger deficits, higher taxes, more regulation and more subsidies than this budget has pages. Less than half a year ago, the fall economic statement projected a deficit of $36-billion for this year, falling steadily over the next five years. There was even supposed to be a small surplus. Fast forward, the deficits are exceeding $40 billion over the next two years. There is no return to balance in sight. I get it. The Liberals do not think balance is their responsibility. They say instead that a declining debt-to-GDP ratio is the measure of success, but we did not get that either. That is going up. One in five Canadians are skipping meals because food price inflation is in the double digits. The average down payment needed for a home has doubled. It is the same for the average cost of rent and the average cost of a mortgage, which have all doubled. The cost of heating a home went up by 100% in some parts of our country. One in three Canadians say that they are struggling financially, 67% say they are cutting back and making sacrifices. Nine out of 10 young people do not ever believe they will own a home. People are out of money and they are out of hope. That is after eight year of the government. The government is putting its hands even deeper into the pockets of Canadians. That is what budget 2023 is: more taxes on pensions and El; more taxes on beer, wine, and spirits; more taxes on gas, groceries and home heating. It is painfully clear that the government does not understand the struggles of the middle class or even the simple principles that govern the country's economy, because its response is more of the same. It is more of the reckless, misguided, ineffective ideas that got us into this mess in the first place. Therefore, forgive me if I do not think the Liberals can fix this. We have the most unaffordable homes in the OECD. We have the second-biggest real estate bubble in the world. The theme of this budget is “Made in Canada”. It is right on the front page. What have the Liberals made in Canada? They have a made-in-Canada cost-of-living crisis, a made-in-Canada housing crisis, a made-in-Canada opioid and addiction crisis and a made-in-Canada violent crime crisis. That is their record over the last years. We cannot afford to spend billions of dollars with no plan to pay it back. Never in the history of our country has there been a prime minister, who has been in that chair for eight years, who has spent so much so much money to achieve so little. We cannot afford to pay the interest that the Liberals are racking up on the taxpayer credit card. This year, our debt will cost nearly $44 billion. In five years, it will be $50 billion. We cannot afford the cost of spending on consumption instead of spending on investments. We cannot stop. We cannot afford to not build new homes. We cannot afford to have an environment plan that is a tax plan that does not even lower emissions. What happens in 10 or 20 years when the bill comes due for a decade and a half of Liberal debt and deficit? What is going to happen when we have had 20 or 30 years of building four homes for every 10 new people in our country? What is going to happen when we have had 10 years of a carbon tax that keeps going up and emissions that have, so far, followed suit? More important, who is going to pay? I do not have the answer to that question, because I honestly do not know. However, what I do know is that it is not going to be the Prime Minister,. However, it will be a problem for the next generation, the young people who will want to buy a home, who will want to get a job, who will want to build a family; the people who are already struggling today; the people whom we are supposed to be leaving a bright, optimistic future, the ones we are supposed to be setting up for success. We have had eight years of the Prime Minister and the Liberals are leaving them with no hope, no money and no opportunity. We will be voting against budget 2023. We know that better is possible in our country. The Prime Minister said it himself, but that is not what he has delivered. We know that we can aim our sights higher than 0.3% real GDP growth. We know that we need to stand up for the common sense of the common people. We know that we need to be here to bring home a better, brighter future for Canadians. We are going to do that by creating powerful paycheques with lower taxes that make hard work pay again. We are going to do that by ending the inflationary debt and deficits once and for all, and to bring home lower prices and lower interest rates so hard-working families, hard-working people can save more of their own money. We are going to protect the future and the prosperity of the next generation by living within their means, something that the government has no idea how to do. We are going to bring homes that people can afford by removing those in the way and cutting the red tape to freeing up land so we can actually build housing. This is how we build a strong and prosperous country, with a small government that makes room for bigger people. We know that we have the best, the brightest and most talented individuals in our country who want to do well, who want to have better lives for their families and who want to work in their professions. We know that we are blessed to live in a country with fields full of wheat, with oceans full of fish, with reserves full of oil and with brains full of knowledge. We are squandering every single opportunity by eight years of the government's record. We know that we live in the best country on earth and we think it is time for Canadians to have a government that also believes so. It is time for change and it is time for a government that thinks about a budget focused on the future, focused on growth and not just focused on staying in power.

1516 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Apr/18/23 1:46:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member opposite, but I am confused. The program we have in place to fight climate change, the price on pollution, has shown to be the best market mechanism to actually combat greenhouse gas emissions. This is about the future, as is investing in clean tech. I am wondering why the member opposite believes that we are not focused on the future when this budget is all about the future.

78 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Apr/18/23 1:46:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me clear it up for the member. The carbon tax does not work; emissions have gone up. Canadians pay more than they get back. Therefore, the Liberals' claim that it is revenue neutral, both the parliamentary Budget Officer and the member's own Minister of Finance said the same thing. The carbon tax does not work. In fact, this is a government that reveres the President of the United States, who stood here and talked about a climate plan. The Liberals revere his climate plan, which has no consumer carbon tax. They should take a lesson from him.

101 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Apr/18/23 1:47:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She began by saying that we need to think about the future. At the same time, she criticized the government for taking action on the environment. For the Bloc Québécois, both the future, and even the present, depend on a healthy planet. It means being able to breathe unpolluted air, protect biodiversity and not get sick because what we put in our bodies is polluted. This planet sustains us. There is no option B, that much is clear. The Bloc Québécois, unlike my colleague, feels that the government is not doing enough. My colleague ended her speech by saying that she wants to have oceans full of fish and reserves full of oil. There are oil spills in Alaska right now because of Imperial Oil. Indigenous communities have no fish to catch, and they are drinking contaminated water. Rising temperatures are destroying the oceans and therefore the fish. I would like a brief comment from my colleague on this.

177 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Apr/18/23 1:48:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure there was a question there, but I will certainly speak. The government does not have an environmental plan. It has a tax plan disguised as an environmental plan, which takes more money out of the pockets of Canadians and actually produces no results. The government has hung its hat on a consumer carbon tax that has increased emissions, that has taken more money out of the pockets of Canadians and that has raised the price of gas, groceries and home heating, and it has nothing to show for it. Members can forgive me if I do not think it is an environmental plan, because nobody else here does either.

115 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Apr/18/23 1:49:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it should be pretty straightforward to take on the Liberals. Sometimes it is like wrestling with mediocre Teletubbies over there, but the Conservatives have to claim everything is propaganda, because they are offering nothing. The idea that the Conservatives care about a housing crisis is ridiculous. I was here for all the years of Stephen Harper, who did nothing. The idea that Pierre Elliott Trudeau's son caused the oxy crisis, when Stephen Harper did nothing on it, we know that is false. It is not propaganda; it is false. Then, on a climate plan, it is ridiculous to hear the Conservatives talk about a climate plan, when half their backbench believes the earth is flat. I would like to ask my hon. colleague why the Conservatives have to come up with the so-called gatekeepers and misinformation, when the fact is that building housing in Canada requires investments and money, and that is something they refuse, and have always refused, to put in. That is why we have the extent of the crisis we do now.

179 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Apr/18/23 1:50:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I was a young staffer here, I used to watch that member oppose the government before he decided to check his principles at the door, stop representing his constituents and join the government in ensuring that life was unaffordable for for Canadians. That member used to be a part of an opposition, before he joined the government. In terms of environmental plans or housing plans, that member opposite has not brought an idea to the floor on them. In fact, he has decided to support the government in everything it does, including by voting against ensuring that the government is held accountable at committees and in the House of Commons for all the scandals. The member opposite, who has joined that government, can join the scandal ridden government that we have today.

135 words