44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 25, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member for Winnipeg North that they are going backward, not forward. They went from 1.34% down to under 1.29% of GDP this year.
They have also gotten very creative with their accounting. They added in veterans' pensions, Global Affairs Canada costs and Coast Guard costs, which we never added in. If we added all of those things in when we were government, we would probably have had 1.5% during the time that we were in Afghanistan.
Yes, we did take a bit of a fall in spending after we pulled out because we were balancing the books, something that the government has no plans of ever doing as it continues to saddle our kids and our grandchildren with its reckless spending.
I will just say this on Ukraine: This budget only has $200 million in it. It is nothing for Ukraine. We supported everything that the government has done in the past, but it is doing nothing in this budget, and that is shameful.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in one of his recent books, Michael Mann, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said that the oil industry's primary strategy to deal with climate change was first to deny reality. Then, as the consequences of climate change became visible, the industry changed its strategy to mislead the public. It is trying to make us believe that there is hope that new technologies will emerge in a few years and that we will be able to defeat climate change easily.
I would like to know whether my colleague is prepared to accept science and recognize that taxpayer-funded carbon capture strategies are a ploy to mislead taxpayers. Those subsidies and tax credits for carbon capture and storage represent a significant amount of public funds. Is my colleague, who is so concerned about a balanced budget, prepared to rise and take a stand against these subsidies?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, in this budget, there is some money for our Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, Lake Simcoe and every other lake across Canada. It is only $650 million spread out over 10 years. That is not an investment in making sure that we protect our freshwater lakes, which are a precious resource.
I was proud that over the time I was a member of Parliament in government, the Lake Winnipeg Basin got over $35 million, just for one lake. This government is not even going to commit that over 10 years for any lake in this country. That is what is disturbing.
I will just say this: The government's idea of reducing carbon emissions is to tax Canadians more, and as a rural Manitoban, as someone with an agriculture background, and as someone who has family that is still farming, I see the impact this is having on our seniors. I see the impact that this is having on farmers. Their costs of production continue to go up. The price of food gets more expensive, and it is all because of the government's tax plan, which is not a carbon plan.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise the issue of support for students. I met with members of the Graduate Students' Society at the University of Victoria. They were hoping for support in this federal budget, and they shared the struggles that many grad students are facing, living on less than $20,000 a year. In addition to skyrocketing rents and groceries, they also have tuition costs. They are going into debt. Low-income students are adding to their undergraduate student loan debt.
I was concerned when I heard a Conservative member, a couple of days ago, say in the House that the government should be charging interest on student loans. That penalizes low-income students. I think we need to do more to support students, not less.
Grad students are asking for an expansion of tri-agency grants and increased awards. They are organizing a national walkout on May 1 to demonstrate how integral they are to institutions and how they are affected by these funding decisions.
Could the member speak to his opinion on how we can better support these students, who are asking the government to invest in the next generation of leaders, often while they are struggling to put food on the table?
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would say this: The one thing I detest about the student loans program is that it is very much prejudiced against kids who come from farms and small businesses, especially in rural areas. Because of the assets owned by their parents, they do not qualify for a student loan. That works against their ability to get an education, which often ends up costing a lot more because they have to travel great distances and move into cities, where those universities are located. I want to make sure those barriers are removed for all rural students.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I quote:
...let me be very clear. We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline and our deficits must continue to be reduced. The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must [and will] be paid down.... This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we will not cross.
Who said that? It was our finance minister. A year ago, she made that bold statement, said those bold words, when she proclaimed to the world that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio would be Canada's anchor and that she would not cross the line of allowing it to increase.
Here we are a year later. Can we guess what happened? Our finance minister took a big step across the line. The issue for Canadians is this: Whom do they trust to manage this country's finances?
We asked for three things. We asked that the war on work and lower taxes for workers be ended, that the inflationary deficits that are driving the sky-high cost of living be ended and that the gatekeepers be removed from home construction across Canada so Canadians can have their dream of home ownership restored. None of those three requests were followed through on by the Liberal government.
I want to touch on a couple of issues, including affordability and inflation, the problem of uncontrolled spending, the staggering cost of government and, finally, economic performance. I do not know if I will have enough time to cover all those issues, but I will do my best.
First is affordability and inflation. Taxes on everything are going up. There is a reason that Canadians should not trust the current government to manage finances. It is a tax-and-spend government under which the cost of living has skyrocketed, including the cost of groceries, gas at the pumps and home heating.
Let us not forget the cost of housing. Under the Liberal government, nine out of 10 Canadians now say that dream of home ownership has disappeared. It is a dream I grew up with. I assumed it was attainable for most, if not all, Canadians. Today, nine out of 10 young Canadians say that dream is no longer a reality for them. A down payment on the average Canadian home, the average mortgage payment and, quite frankly, the average rent payment have doubled in Canada over the last seven years under the Liberal government.
Inflation has eroded what a dollar buys. We see stagnating wages across the country. It is at the point now where the gap between the rich and the poor is growing ever greater. Those with assets are growing richer, whereas those who earn paycheques are growing poorer. We now have one in five Canadians skipping meals just to get by and have enough to eat. Let us think about that. There is a perverse situation in which the poor are going to food banks and asking for medical assistance in dying, or in other words, assisted suicide. This is not because they are sick but because they do not want to go hungry. Is that the perverse situation in which we find ourselves in Canada? The government is expanding access to medical assistance in dying, while at the same time, it is not providing the resources Canadians need to at least survive and have some kind of satisfaction in their lives.
I will talk about the problem of uncontrolled spending, which is a critical issue for this country. Today, the government is spending $151 billion more than it did in 2015, when it came to power and took over from the Harper government. That spending has created unprecedented inflationary pressures that are driving the skyrocketing cost of living for Canadians, who just cannot afford life in Canada anymore. Today, we have a deficit of $43 billion. Does everyone remember when the Prime Minister, back in the 2015 election, promised tiny deficits of no more than $10 billion? Every year since then, budget deficits have been much greater than that.
We all acknowledge that, during COVID, there had to be supports and benefits provided to Canadians to allow them to make it through that very troubling period. However, we are out of COVID now, and the deficits continue despite the government's promises to return to balanced budgets. The Minister of Finance promised we would return to a balanced budget. She promised that last year, just one year ago, and today she broke that promise. Promise after promise after promise is broken by Canada's corrupt and failed government.
The result, of course, is that over the last seven years, Canada's national debt has doubled. In fact, the government has racked up more debt than all other Canadian governments combined. That, by definition, is profligacy. That is irresponsible use of taxpayers' money. The government does not understand that we have to live within our means, the way any Canadian family has to.
I will go on and talk about the staggering cost of government. Under the current government, the federal public service has increased by nearly 31%. In seven years, over 80,000 new federal government positions have been added. I can ask an average Canadian citizen out there whether they are getting better service. Those 80,000 professionals who have been hired by the government must be providing an enhanced level of service. How are passports doing? What a failed program that is. How are visas doing? That is a failed program. Immigration is a failed program. It goes on and on and on. Service is going down, and the cost of government is going up. Who pays for it? Canadians do.
Finally, I will talk about economic performance. One thing I had hoped the government was going to include in the budget was something addressing the issue of competitiveness. We compete with other countries around the world for capital, for investment and for human resources, and we have a productivity gap in this country that continues to grow. Canadians are producing less and less product. That is undermining our national competitiveness, and it is driving inflationary pressures. Every economist will tell us that. There was nothing in the budget to address that gaping hole in our productivity.
I have had so little time to flesh out why we, as Conservatives, cannot support the budget. This is a failed budget. Canada has a failed government, and Canadians deserve better.
1082 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just a few minutes ago, in his speech, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman talked about the fact that the Harper government cut the defence budget in order to balance the books. I notice that my hon. colleague across the way is also talking about balancing the books. It just seems like the Conservatives sometimes want it both ways. They talk about balancing the books, but then on each individual thing, they say, “Oh, but we need to increase that, and we need to increase this.”
I would ask the hon. member opposite this: Does he agree with his party's defence critic that we should cut defence spending to balance the books?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way just had an opportunity to ask the defence critic that question.
I would suggest to the member that it was her finance minister who, last year, said that she could balance the budget in four years. How would she have done that? It would have required controlling spending and being responsible with taxpayer dollars, which is something the finance minister has been unable to do. That is why we will not support an irresponsible budget.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague has spent a lot of time telling us that we need to shrink government and reduce debt and the deficit. I understand that; he is a Conservative. I respect his point of view, even though I do not share it.
That being said, the government has fundamental responsibilities that should be important, even to a Conservative. One of those responsibilities is employment insurance. He and I will both agree that a company like Sunlife is not going to provide a decent private-sector EI program.
For years, the Liberal government has been promising to reform the EI system. We need to expand coverage, ensure that there is no longer an EI spring gap and change the way it is funded, because we are going to shift the burden of pandemic-related expenses to our businesses and workers. Does my colleague agree that the government has broken its promise, and does he think that the system needs to be reformed?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague and I might agree that the EI system must be reformed but disagree on how it should be reformed.
In terms of his suggestion that I would advocate for shrinking government, I will say that I did not mention that in my speech. I talked about controlling spending. If we control spending and grow the economy, we suddenly have the capacity to deliver the services that Canadians need. It is about balancing those two things, and I believe that, as a Conservative government, we will be able to get that done.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which focused on fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget and a zero deficit. I would simply like to remind my colleague that a deficit was posted in eight of the nine years of Stephen Harper's Conservative government. The only year that did not show a deficit was the year before the election, and that was because his previous government had sold the GM shares it purchased during the auto sector crisis. It was a bit artificial.
I have two questions for my colleague. What would he cut and where would he look for the additional money to balance the budget?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the Harper years. During the Harper years, of course, the globe experienced an economic crisis that Canada also had to address. The member knows that Canada was the last country in the G7 to enter that global recession and the first to emerge from it. This occurred because of the management of Stephen Harper. I am very proud of our accomplishments.
By the way, the member is right that, in 2015, we left the Liberal government a surplus of $2 billion. We had balanced budgets. Since that time, the Liberal government has been unable to achieve balanced budgets. In fact, the deficits this government has incurred are actually atrocious when we look at the generational debt that has been created for my children and my grandchildren and for his.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, every single day we hear new stories and new reports about the affordability crisis in this country. Canadians are struggling. Never mind luxuries; basic necessities are out of reach for far too many Canadian families.
Food bank usage continues to skyrocket and break records across the country. Some have even resorted to dumpster-diving to feed their families. Mortgages and rent prices have nearly doubled since the Liberals have taken office and nine out of 10 young Canadians have reportedly given up on the dream of home ownership. This costly coalition is squeezing Canadians' drive.
Budget 2023 was yet another opportunity for the NDP-Liberal government to course-correct. Conservatives put forward three clear demands to support Canadians in the lead-up to the budget. We asked for the elimination of the inflationary carbon tax and deficits, lower taxes so that it pays to work and the removal of the gatekeepers who are driving up the cost of housing. Not a single one of these demands was met in the budget. Instead, the finance minister doubled down on her government's record of higher taxes and inflationary deficits.
Budget 2023 is an absolute failure. It is a failure even by the finance minister's own standards. Just a year ago she stood in this place and told Canadians that the country's debt-to-GDP ratio was her “fiscal anchor” and that it must decline for Canada's finances to be sustainable. In fact, she said it was a line that she would not cross. Budget 2023 crosses that line, so according to the government's own finance minister, this costly coalition's inflationary debt and deficits are unsustainable.
Budget 2023 introduces $40.1 billion in additional deficit spending that will be paid for by the taxpayers. That number is almost $10 billion more than forecasted just last fall. The Prime Minister has added more to the national debt than all other prime ministers combined, racking the debt up to $1.22 trillion. That breaks down to nearly $81,000 per household in Canada.
The Prime Minister's new spending in this budget alone costs every Canadian household an additional $4,200. It is the Canadian taxpayers of today and tomorrow that will pay the price for Liberal mismanagement. The cost to service Canada's debt has nearly doubled in two years climbing from $24.5 billion to $43.9 billion. That is money that is added to the government's ledger annually but that delivers no services or benefits to Canadians.
The reality of this costly coalition's inflationary debt and deficits is that it is adding more pressure and more costs to the household budgets of Canadians. They are responsible for driving up inflation and interest rates. What is even more concerning is that in budget 2023, we find out that there is no longer a path to a balance in Canada's budget projections. The government has completely abandoned any efforts to balance the budget. Canadians are being squeezed from both sides.
Despite the endless deficits of this government, Canadians are still paying more in taxes than ever before. Payroll taxes are costing workers and small businesses more this year and the increased carbon tax is driving up the cost of everything. It is making it more expensive for Canadians to drive to work, buy groceries or heat their home.
For those in the communities that I represent and for rural Canadians across this country those costs are even more punishing. We know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the average family is paying more in carbon taxes than they get back in rebates and now the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has finally admitted that as well. The costly coalition's high-tax agenda is cutting directly into the paycheques of hard-working Canadians and inflationary deficits are ensuring that whatever is left of their paycheques does not go nearly as far as it once did.
This NDP-Liberal coalition is costing Canadians more and more, but they are not getting more for their money. Canadians are not getting better or more efficient government services. In fact, some line items were noticeably missing from the budget. The budget offered no support for our rural municipalities, for the retroactive RCMP wage cost that is constraining their municipal budgets. The one-time back pay costs were negotiated by the Liberal government, and it was their decision to not consult or include the municipalities in those decisions. The negotiated agreement far exceeds what it told municipalities to plan for, and it has left them holding the lion's share of the bill.
Certainly, our RCMP members deserve appropriate pay for the work that they do, work that is so important to our communities, even more so as the Liberal government's catch-and-release crime policies are making our communities feel less and less safe. The fact is that the government failed to consult with the municipalities, and the Liberal government is the one that should be responsible for that one-time cost. Those costs have serious implications for the municipalities in my riding, and yet there is no relief for them in this budget bill.
Another noticeably missing line item from the budget, and subsequently the budget implementation bill, is a time to attach benefit for adopted and intended parents. The government has been promising parity to adoptive parents since the 2019 election, and the creation of a new benefit has been in the minister's mandate letters since then. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion publicly alluded to the long-promised benefit, but it is nowhere to be found. Adoptive and intended parents should not have to keep waiting to get the parity they deserve and that they need.
My private member's bill addresses this inequity, and I sincerely hope that it finds support from all sides of this House. It is time that Canada works for the people who work. Budget 2023 and this budget implementation bill fail hard-working Canadians. They fail to ensure that Canadians could get ahead when they work hard and they play by the rules. They fail to reverse the inflationary deficits and taxes that are burdening Canadians and limiting their ability to provide for themselves and their families.
This budget proves that this costly coalition is unable and unwilling to reverse course on its harmful policies. Only with a change of government would Canadians get the relief that they so desperately need and deserve. Only Conservatives have a plan to make Canada work for everyday Canadians. Conservatives would lower taxes so that hard work does pay off. We would keep more money in the pockets of Canadians so that they could spend more of their own money on what they need and their priorities.
Conservatives would reverse inflationary deficits that are driving up inflation and interest rates within this country, and we would eliminate the costly carbon tax, a tax that is driving up the cost of basic necessities on just about everything in this country, all while doing nothing for the environment. We know that because the Liberal government is lining its pockets off the backs of Canadians while missing every single one of its emissions targets that it sets for itself. Conservatives would also remove government gatekeepers who are contributing to the soaring housing costs.
Those are all common-sense principles and policies that Canadians deserve, but that are nowhere to be found in this budget. This costly coalition has put forward a budget bill that for the sake of Canadians cannot be supported.
1277 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, every so often we get a sense of what it is the Conservatives are really up to.
The critic for the defence department says that they are going to work towards a balanced budget, that they are going to be doing some cutting and that defence is on the chopping block. He has made it very clear. The Conservatives support cutbacks to defence. The Conservatives have also made it very clear that they would get rid of the dental program.
We just had a major announcement for the community of St. Thomas and in fact all of Canada with the Volkswagen electric battery plant. It would be Canada's largest factory. The leader of the Conservative Party has been very critical of it. Could the member explain why the Conservative Party does not support it?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one thing that we have noticed with the government is it does not have any fiscal restraint. When there is defence of the Prime Minister going on lavish holidays or even going to a state funeral and spending $6,000 a night, which is Canadian taxpayers' money, there is a problem. There is so much wasteful spending from the government, which could be going to help Canadians.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague spoke about the gatekeepers of housing construction. This gives me an opportunity to remind her that Quebec is the only province with a permanent program for the construction of social housing among other things.
With respect to housing construction, the worst gatekeeper for many years has been the federal conditions. The national housing strategy in particular has deprived poor Quebeckers of housing because much time was lost in administrative delays.
Does my colleague agree that the federal government's conditions have hindered the development of housing? Is she ready to admit that money to help build housing should be paid directly to the Quebec government without any conditions and with respect for its areas of jurisdiction?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am someone in this place who is on the record about respecting provincial jurisdiction. I believe provinces actually know better than the federal government does when it comes to their own jurisdiction and what works. Again, I respect provincial jurisdiction and provinces know what is best for the people who live in them.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, the member talked about this budget including harmful policies. It is because of the NDP that the budget included $13 billion over five years and $4.4 billion a year on an ongoing basis to support dental care.
How can she describe that as a harmful policy?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what is in the budget is a lot of spending. I mentioned in my speech the RCMP: our municipalities are being struck with millions. Some of my municipalities have millions of one-time, retroactive pay. There are places where there is spending in the budget and there are places where the spending is missing. I think it is imperative the government be prudent on what it spends that money on.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe I clearly heard my hon. colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster say that we needed to remove the gatekeepers who stop home building.
What federal department or federal operation has anything to do with local home building?
I also respect the provinces and I do think that is under provinces and municipalities. I agree that we should remove barriers to home building, but I do not think that resides with the federal government.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
