SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 186 - Apr/27/23

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

Apr/27/23 11:08:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that the member is voting against the budget. We knew that even before the budget was produced, because that is what the Conservatives said they would do. It seems that the later it gets, the more the Conservatives are trying to rewrite history into this Harper wonder world of reality that did not exist. The member who spoke before him, his mentor, indicated that the Harper government signed more trade agreements, which is just not true. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this particular government. That is the fact. Then we get the member saying that the Harper government invested in natural resources and the Conservatives built things. They did not even build an inch of pipeline going to coastlines. The Trans Mountain pipeline, which the member referenced, was completely collapsing. Then the member talked about LNG. In one of the biggest agreements with the private sector and government sector, working with the NDP in the Province of British Columbia and the national government, we have LNG in B.C. I wonder if the member wants to rewrite this, and what else he has to say.

201 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/27/23 11:09:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had many more things to say, and one of the other areas I wanted to talk about was the crime rates in this country. Under Stephen Harper, the crime rates had fallen to historic lows. Violent crime was down to places it had never been before. If we look at graphs of violent crime, there is a distinct downward trend until 2015 and since then it has gone exponentially up. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canadians do not feel safe on their own streets.

89 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Apr/27/23 11:09:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I came in halfway through the member's speech. He was referring to this mythical time in Canada when there were manufacturing, jobs and value added. I could not understand what he was talking about until I realized he was talking about the period of the Harper regime. I was there and saw the softwood lumber sellout and with all of the related sellouts of the Harper regime, how manufacturing collapsed in this country. British Columbia went from having a vibrant manufacturing industry to raw log exports. We saw minerals that were transformed before the Harper regime becoming exports of raw minerals. There was the export of raw bitumen. We saw health care being slashed and cut. We saw seniors being forced to work years longer in hard, physical labour because the Harper regime decided people could not retire at 65 anymore. My question is very simple. Why are Conservatives so delusional about the years of the Harper regime?

161 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/27/23 11:11:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that currently in northern British Columbia, logging companies are shutting down mills. Under the Liberal government, logging cannot continue in this country. It also has a lot to do with the NDP government, which is a do nothing—

46 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/27/23 11:11:09 p.m.
Watch

It has the best economy in the country, the best job creation—

13 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/27/23 11:11:34 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby had an opportunity to speak. There might be another opportunity to ask another question, so I would ask him to hold onto any questions he may have. The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

43 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/27/23 11:11:34 p.m.
Watch

—make sure nothing is happening in this country, make sure that our natural resources do not get developed, make sure—

22 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/27/23 11:11:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that under an NDP government, sawmills in northern British Columbia are being shut down and the Liberal-NDP coalition seems to be fine with that.

32 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Apr/27/23 11:12:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a factual rebuttal. I know facts are difficult for Conservatives to come by. British Columbia, under the NDP government, has the best economy in the country, the best job creation record in the entire country, the best investments in terms of health care and education. The member should know this. If there is any model to look at in Canada, it is the B.C. economy and the B.C. NDP government.

76 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/27/23 11:12:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, whatever the member is talking about is cold comfort to the over 600 people who have lost their jobs in Chetwynd and Houston, British Columbia. We know that the NDP-Liberal coalition is terrible for resource development. A Conservative government will ensure that our resources get to market and that people get paid a fair value for those resources.

61 words

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Apr/27/23 11:13:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47 Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this place and add my voice and those of the constituents I represent in raising concerns with both the budget and Bill C-47, the budget implementation act. This bill is the legislation by which certain provisions in the budget will be implemented. We have already voted against the budget, which includes over $40 billion in additional spending that will have to be paid for by taxpayers through taxes. It demonstrates the abject failure of the government to address the affordability crisis it has created. Earlier this week, I stepped into an elevator with a Liberal member of Parliament who, in making small talk, asked me, “How are things in Saskatchewan?” If I had had more time, I would have told him about my spring tour, which I held during our recent riding weeks. While we cannot go everywhere in two weeks, we visited 19 communities and toured a number of businesses. It was great to visit with hundreds of residents from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek over a cup of coffee. If I had had more time, I would have shared with that MP the issues that were raised, over and over again, that relate to this budget discussion, but one floor up did not allow for all that, so I am going to share them now. I guess I could have given him the one-floor elevator speech, which is that the consensus in my riding is that everything is broken. The first concern is the huge federal debt and the ever-present, ongoing Liberal deficits. People are absolutely blown away by the figure of $1.22 trillion in projected federal debt, a figure that has ballooned under the current Prime Minister, causing the highest inflation in 40 years by doubling the national debt. Additionally, people are gravely concerned by the $43.9 billion, which is the amount projected to be the cost of servicing Canada’s national debt this fiscal year, a figure that has almost doubled in one year. They understand that this amount is only likely to increase, as more of Canada’s low-interest debt matures and Canada is forced to renew those loans at higher interest rates. Deficit spending, inflation and higher interest rates are a big deal to seniors living on fixed incomes, families struggling to make ends meet and young people desperately looking for an affordable place to live. Unlike the Prime Minister, who does not think about monetary policy, Canadians who do not have a trust fund are very engaged on the ramifications of the Liberal government’s poor management of Canada’s economy. The actions of the current government are having a direct negative impact on their quality of life, which brings us to the ever-present and ever-increasing carbon tax. For residents of Saskatchewan, especially those living and working in rural Saskatchewan, this Liberal tax is a source of deep frustration. Besides increasing the cost of everything, the carbon tax is a symbol in the minds of rural Saskatchewanians of the incredible disconnect between the reality in which we live and the Liberal elites and their ideological policies. They also understand that the carbon tax is a tax plan and not an environmental plan, which is why a commonly asked question I have heard is this: “With the Liberals having spent us into such a deep hole, will a future Conservative government be able to afford to cut the carbon tax?” While I do understand the question, I remind them that a Conservative government will absolutely axe the carbon tax. I also had the opportunity to visit with mayors, reeves and councillors. They, too, noted the negative impacts of the Liberals' carbon tax and inflation-inducing policies on their budgets. They expressed concern over how federal infrastructure programs are designed with big cities in mind and with a win/lose lottery-style methodology. They confirmed that municipalities need stable, reliable funding programs enabling them to do their work rather than dictating the infrastructure priorities the federal government wants to fund. We also discussed the housing crisis. CMHC data for January 2023 showed that new housing starts were at the lowest level since 2020, and while they are down in large urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver, we are feeling the housing shortage in smaller communities in Saskatchewan as well. Constituents and elected representatives also brought up labour shortages, rural crime and the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, as well as Bill C-11 and the government's unrelenting focus on controlling what Canadians watch and post online. I again want to thank the hundreds of residents for coming out to share their thoughts and concerns with me. For the purposes of this evening's debate, I also want to address the mismanagement of our country’s finances, which has led to incredible waste at the expense of Canadians. Canadians are rightly asking what exactly the government has been spending their money on, and it is their money, as the leader of His Majesty’s loyal opposition pointed out. They are also asking what they are getting for the money the Liberals are spending, whether life is getting easier or getting better, and whether they are getting ahead. The resounding answer is no. Never before has a government spent so much to get so little. Let us just take a look at a few examples. There were CERB cheques going to prisoners and organized crime, and $94 million was spent on hotel rooms for asylum seekers in the last eighteen months. There was a $237-million contract for ventilators given to a Liberal insider and $54 million for the “ArriveSCAM” app. There is the Phoenix pay system. It has been seven years since the Liberals launched the Phoenix pay system, and it has been a disaster. In my role as the shadow minister for public services and procurement, it has become all too clear that the government has very little respect for Canadians and their tax dollars. While it is necessary for the issues with the Phoenix pay system to be fixed, there is an additional $1 billion dollars in the budget to continue to address the Phoenix pay system, and there is no end in sight. That is on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out in damages for the government's mismanagement. What was the Liberals' solution? It was to hire their friends at McKinsey, giving them a contract, which after three amendments, reached a value of almost $28 million. What was the result after McKinsey was contracted? The backlog increased. The continually increasing outsourcing by the government while it rapidly expands the public service is incoherent. One would think that, if the public service is expanding, outsourcing would be needed less. Instead, it increased just as rapidly, and when we have asked for answers on the extent of the outsourcing in our efforts to ensure that Canadians are getting good value for money, we are stonewalled by Liberals on committee, ministers and their departments. The Liberals have found great friends and partners in the NDP. At a time of record spending and 40-year highs in inflation, Canadians are struggling to pay their bills, while well-connected Liberal insiders have never had it so good. There are 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks. One in five Canadians is skipping meals because food is too expensive. With mortgage payments and costs associated with buying a home doubling, home ownership is an elusive dream now for nine out of 10 young Canadians. Rent has doubled as well. The reality is that the country is worse off after all the government's reckless and wasteful spending. Seniors, families, young people, farmers, business owners and workers all know this is true, and the NDP just keeps supplying the Liberal government with more shovels to dig a deeper hole for Canadians, all while claiming it is holding government to account. As I said, Canadians are struggling, and they need hope. They can count on Conservatives to turn the hurt that the Prime Minister has caused into hope. It is time for a change, and we are ready.

1381 words

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Apr/27/23 11:23:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, parts of that were really hard to listen to in terms of some of the revisionist history as it relates to support for municipalities and for housing. I think the member opposite was part of the previous government. I was a city counsellor during that time. There was no support for infrastructure for municipalities in her time in office. There was no housing support for municipalities. The Conservative government relied on trickle-down economics, hoping that someone, somewhere in the private sector would help with affordable housing. That did not happen. Our national housing strategy is doing that and providing support. What was she doing for all those years she was in office? Why could she not provide consistent support to municipalities and housing providers?

127 words

Housing

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/27/23 11:23:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know where that member was back in 2008-09, but we created Canada's economic action plan that saw Canada enter the recession in a less deep way than other countries did. Our infrastructure projects and funding saw us go into the recession in a less extensive way than other countries did. Our projects were timely, and they were targeted. The funding that we provided ensured that shovel-ready projects were built. The government has failed young Canadians. The dream of owning a house is slipping out of reach for them because of the failures of the Liberal government, supported by the NDP.

108 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Apr/27/23 11:24:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also found the speech interesting. In terms of revisionist history, I just wanted to clarify with the member across the way. I am not saying the Liberal government has done a good job of putting forward and using the Phoenix pay system, but I am pretty sure the Harper government brought that system forward. Could she explain that for me?

63 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/27/23 11:25:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was actually the Liberals who launched the Phoenix pay system back in 2016. They need to take responsibility. We can go back and listen to the testimony that we heard in OGGO committee; it was actually whistle-blowers in the bureaucracy who warned the current government that it should not go ahead with the Phoenix pay system.

60 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/27/23 11:26:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I also remember that 2009 was when the Stephen Harper government launched an initiative to replace our 40-year-old payroll system, in which I do not think anyone ever failed to get paid, with what was described at the time as a modern, off-the-shelf commercial system. A different corporation, IBM, signed a contract in 2009 with Stephen Harper's government. They made out like bandits, and they built us a lemon. It is quite true that the Liberals decided to start trying to drive that lemon, but both governments deserve a fair share of the blame. I really do not think it is fair to say the blame is even. Harper steered that ship and started by laying off all the staff in all the different payroll groups in every department. Tellingly, the Treasury Board and finance never got rid of their own finance systems. They let all the other departments get stuck with the lemon. There is a lot of blame to go around. I hate to say it because everybody hates when we say it was all Stephen Harper's fault. However, that is what the history tells us, and that is what I remember.

202 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/27/23 11:27:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not really have a response for that. That is what she remembers, and she is entitled to her memories. As I said, we have heard from experts who have actually identified the Phoenix pay system and the fact that there were individuals working in the bureaucracy who warned the government that it should not go ahead and launch it, but it did anyway.

67 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Apr/27/23 11:27:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, tonight I would like to speak about the idea of freedom in Canadian politics because I think, underneath the debate we are having about this budget, there is a deeper debate about the nature of freedom. What is freedom? Freedom, in the modern context, in common usage, has the sense of describing a reality in which the individual has a broader range of decision-making space. An individual who is free can make more decisions about his or her life, and an individual who is less free has more decisions made for them by others. That is freedom at a general level. Freedom is the general ability to make unencumbered individual decisions, at least as freedom is commonly colloquially discussed today. I think it is important to notice that, within that general concept of freedom, there is significant divergence among political actors about what kinds of decisions are most important for individuals to be free to make. Every political party has a concept of freedom that comes from identifying different areas of life in which that range of choice making that is available is more or less important. Obviously, not all decisions are equally important. Certain kinds of decisions are more important than others. To speak of whether a person has the freedom to, say, run a red light, is obviously a trivialization of the concept of freedom because a person who is prevented from running a red light is still substantially free insofar as he or she can still make for themselves all of the decisions that truly matter. Here is another example. Whether justified or not, a restriction on the ability to purchase alcohol is a lesser infringement on freedom than a restriction on the ability to purchase books because, objectively, the decision to read whatever one wants is more important than the decision to drink whatever one wants. Therefore, the building of a robust concept of freedom requires a certain prioritization of goods and a sense of what kinds of choices are more important for an individual to be able to make. Every society, for practical reasons, limits the kinds of choices that people can make in certain respects, so a society must decide what choices are more fundamental and what choices can be more reasonably restricted in order to realize other goods. Another example of this is helmet regulation. I support the limitation on freedom associated with requiring people to wear helmets when riding motorcycles because the choice to not wear a helmet is relatively trivial, and there are other more important considerations. However, I also support religious exemptions to helmet requirements because the freedom to practice one's faith is very important and therefore, in the case of a helmet requirement, it is much more than a trivial limitation to individual freedom. Therefore, in that case, uniquely, it is not justified. Those who believe in the value of freedom generally believe that limitations on freedom can be justified to the extent that the limitations are trivial and also to the extent that a limitation on freedom produces some other harm. Within that general framing, let us look at the two rival concepts of freedom advanced by Canada's two major parties. The Liberals came to office with a bit of a freedom agenda. They legalized marijuana and have since decriminalized fentanyl and other hard drugs in B.C. They legalized and have since expanded the space for euthanasia, and they continue to promise a certain kind of expanded individual freedom associated with increasing public spending and subsidy. The idea, from their side, being that people who are given more money by the state have the freedom to do things that they would not otherwise be able to do. These are the areas in which Liberals have emphasized freedom as being most important. On the other hand, Liberals have actively attacked freedom of conscience through efforts to impose ideological values tests for eligibility for certain government programs. They have limited people's freedom to work in cases where those people do not want to make certain medical choices. They have also imposed effective limits on freedom to work for those who work in certain sectors by imposing onerous regulatory constraints on those sectors and effectively trying to transition those sectors out of business. They have limited people's effective economic freedom by presiding over higher taxes, higher homes prices and higher levels of regulation. Most recently, they have limited Canadians' freedom through the passage of an online censorship bill. With this government, one is freer to take drugs, choose death and collect money from the government, but less free to follow one's conscience; work; make medical choices; keep one's own money; buy a home, given the state of housing prices; start a business or hear contrary ideas online. That is one approach to the issue of freedom. Conservatives have, generally, a different set of priorities when it comes to what freedom should look like. Again, this is not just because Conservatives think that freedom is important. It is because Conservatives believe in a hierarchy of goods and an essential character to the human person that leads us to prioritize particular kinds of choices as part of our doctrine of freedom. Most fundamentally, Conservatives believe in freedom of speech, association, conscience and religion. These are the most important freedoms. We believe this because we believe that individual human beings are most fundamentally truth and meaning seeking creatures. Freedom of speech, association, conscience and religion are the means through which we find truth and meaning. Therefore, intervention in our lives by the state that limits these freedoms is particularly harmful and dangerous. Close behind these concepts in terms of importance is the freedom to work, to build and to voluntarily share the fruits of one's labour with others. Protecting the freedom to work, build and share is fundamental to economic prosperity, but actually, the freedom to work, build and share is about much more than just the pursuit of material abundance. Economic freedom is not just about creating a more prosperous society. It does create a more prosperous society, but there is more to it than that. This freedom, too, is about the freedom of an individual to seek meaning. In order to be able to pursue meaning, individuals must be free to build things that are beautiful and then to look at those things with happiness, happiness in both what has been accomplished and happiness arising from the new thing that now exists. The freedom to build and work is intimately tied with the pursuit of meaning and happiness. Protecting people's freedom to build businesses, build into their jobs, build things with their hands as part of their jobs and build up strong families and communities is fundamental for human happiness. Happiness measurement literature actually shows that people who are employed are generally happier, not because of the money they get from working but because of the satisfaction and meaning they get from working. Incidentally, the loss of satisfaction is why I am so strongly opposed to government policies that pay people more for not working than they pay people for working. Poorly constructed benefit programs have robbed so many Canadians of the opportunity to feel the satisfaction and meaning that comes from work while still being able to provide for their families. It is terrible that people have been forced to choose between having enough money to provide for their families and working by government programs that effectively pay them more to not work than they are able to receive through working. As someone recently asked me, what is the essence of being Conservative? I thought about it and I came back with this: The essence of being a Conservative is to believe in building beautiful things that last. Liberals have a hard time with the “building things that last” part, often relying on the insecure foundation of deficit spending, but, more fundamentally, Conservatives understand that unleashing a free economy in which people can build things that they want is not just about prosperity. It is also about the happiness that accrues to individuals for being able to invest of themselves in creating something new and beautiful. Conservatives are champions of the idea of freedom, but a particular kind of freedom. The concept of freedom that we are championing is human freedom, freedom rooted in an understanding of what is important in human life and of the kinds of pursuits that lead to meaning and happiness. Sadly, this budget does not advance our vision of human freedom. It doubles down on the belief that higher taxes, higher spending and a kind of behind-the-scenes prodding but still highly interventionist industrial policy is going to produce the kind of country that we want. I was particularly struck by chapter 3 in the budget. The ineffective so-called affordability measures at the beginning of the budget read to me like a kind of late-stage add-on for political reasons by the government. I think the heart of where the government wants to go with this budgetary policy is in that later chapter. It is its belief that they can push the economy toward its preferred vision of an economy of the future through massive public spending and through selective privileges for certain sectors while piling on additional barriers for other sectors that are not preferred. This is still the steel hand of the state picking winners and losers but trying to wear a velvet glove in the process. I think what our country truly needs is a budget rooted in this concept of human freedom that I have outlined, a budget that seeks to give people more space to create beautiful things that last. Canadians are sick of a government that is content to let people choose drugs and choose death, but does not want to let them choose to keep more of what they have worked for and built on their own. We need a government that gives people the space, the encouragement and the freedom to build beautiful things that last.

1695 words

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

Apr/27/23 11:37:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to give an example and maybe the member could provide his thoughts on this issue. That is the issue of Volkswagen. There is a difference. There is a contrast. The Government of Canada believes that by investing in St. Thomas and the people in the surrounding area, by getting Volkswagen and working with Premier Doug Ford, at the end of the day, Canada will benefit immensely. Yes, there is a substantial cost to doing that and that cost will be better known as we see the type of production, but it is all about an industry that is going to make Canada a leading force in the world with electric vehicle batteries, not to mention all of the different spinoffs, whether it is a lithium mine possibly in Manitoba, or other spinoffs. Does the member see that as a freedom thing or does he believe that his leader is actually on the wrong side of the issue and that the Conservatives better do a flip-flop and support this particular initiative?

176 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Apr/27/23 11:38:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us answer the question in terms of freedoms. If we look at the many projects that have been proposed for this country, various kinds of development projects in various regions, in various sectors, I think of many examples, in particular in my part of the country, of projects that have been entirely viable based on private sector funding, would have created massive numbers of jobs and the government, in some cases, piled regulatory barriers on those; in some cases shut them down directly at a late stage. We have certain kinds of projects where the government is shutting them down even though they are viable in terms of private sector investments and other areas where the government is pouring massive public subsidies in order to get some kinds of developments to take place. I want Canada to be a country where any business can invest in any sector and grow without the kinds of barriers the government has been putting in, but where the government is not presuming to say this sector is one we like and this sector is one we do not, but where in fact the opportunities and the benefits are available for all sectors.

201 words