SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 188

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 1, 2023 11:00AM
  • May/1/23 12:34:44 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Can my colleague across the way explain to the people watching what time allocation is, and can he explain why his government moved this time allocation motion that we will be voting on in a few minutes?
44 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:35:03 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, it is very important that this bill be sent to committee so that members of the House can have an opportunity to ask witnesses and officials questions. We cannot wait any longer, because it is important for Canadians that this bill be passed.
50 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:35:43 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, I will build upon my colleague's question earlier to the minister about the resources that have been provided to St. Thomas in terms of the Volkswagen plant. At lot of people in my area are excited about that for sure. There is a lot of conversation about job creation. However, within this budget, there were not many announcements about housing and supports for the people who are excited about those jobs, to be able to work and get to the plant. I wonder if the minister could expand on that in terms of government resources and allocations into the specific housing that would be required for people to live in order to work at that Volkswagen plant.
120 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:36:33 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Volkswagen investment is an important step forward for St. Thomas, for Ontario and for Canada as we move toward building an economy that is going to create prosperity for our children and for our children's children in an environment that is sustainable. We certainly need to continue also to work on other issues, including the housing issue that my hon. colleague talks about. That is why this government has committed almost $90 billion under the Canada housing strategy to ensure that we are building the kind of housing that will enable folks to have a place to call home and to ensure that they actually have a good job to go to.
120 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:37:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Shepard, in his question, said that the government cannot pass legislation and that it passed only one piece of legislation last week, and yet the Conservative agenda is often to be a destructive force on the floor of the House. What the Conservatives prefer to do is prevent the government from passing legislation, and they do that by bringing in concurrence motions, by giving no indication in terms of how many speakers would accommodate the passage of a bill, and sometimes by not even wanting to sit late in the evening. Does the member not agree that if they are criticizing the government for not passing legislation and then go out of their way to prevent the government from passing legislation, that might be somewhat hypocritical?
132 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:38:17 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, it would not be a big surprise to know that I actually agree exactly with the premise of the question. The hypocrisy that comes from the other side on this issue is quite something, at times. It is important that we are able to move forward. Canadians are expecting their Parliament to function and to function well. The obstruction and delay have slowed down the ability to make progress on behalf of Canadians. It is time for us to move forward. I would say that the hypocrisy coming from the Conservative members of this House is nothing new. As I have said before, the attacks every day on carbon pricing are really rich, I find, given that each and every one of the Conservatives was elected on the basis of putting in place a carbon tax.
138 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:39:05 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member across the way about critical minerals. We have already heard about this from a previous member. We heard from the Prime Minister that Canada is extraordinarily well positioned to succeed in the decades to come, around critical minerals. I recently spoke with the Yukon Chamber of Mines, which said it will be decades before we see critical minerals developed in Yukon, three decades. The Prime Minister talks about getting critical minerals developed in the next eight years or less. They said that we would be lucky, with the current regulatory burden on miners, to get that developed in 30 years. What does this member answer to those miners? After being in government for eight years, how can he reassure the miners in Yukon that this is going to get done?
139 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:39:54 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, I would start by encouraging my hon. colleague to look at Canada's critical minerals strategy, which has been lauded by business organizations and governments across this country. It will enable us to move forward in a thoughtful and strategic way. We, of course, need to be working to ensure that our regulatory and permitting processes are as efficient as possible. Certainly, what Stephen Harper did, by gutting the environmental assessment process, set us back a long way. The Impact Assessment Act enables us to take steps forward, but we are continuing to work internally. We are working with provinces and territories to expedite things. I would just note that the Mining Association of Canada, in responding to the budget, noted that Canada “is a leading mining nation, producing some of the lowest carbon materials and metals” and that this budget “recognizes our industry’s central role in [accelerating] the transition to a net zero economy and building [a strong economic] future”.
169 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:40:46 p.m.
  • Watch
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
69 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:41:55 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote, please.
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 12:41:58 p.m.
  • Watch
Call in the members.
4 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 1:25:38 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
I declare the motion carried. I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.
29 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 1:26:26 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, given the results of the vote, I guess this is a more valuable speaking slot now. It is my honour to rise to bring the voices of Chatham—Kent—Leamington and, on the issue of Bill C-47 today, the voices of all Canadians to this chamber on the budget implementation act. Perhaps the single most important task performed each year by this House is the debate and the passing of the allocation of federal funds, or more accurately and specifically I should say it is the spending of taxpayer dollars. It is our solemn obligation to responsibly steward the Canadian economy, a responsibility abdicated by the government. Therefore, it falls to my colleagues and I, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, to oppose and protest the adoption of the proposed budget. I know it is a shock. The legislation would continue the government's war on work. The raising of taxes would punish the hard work of Canadians by taking an ever greater portion of their hard-earned paycheques away from them, which, in conjunction of the inflationary spending of the government, has seen the cost of living dramatically rise. Today, one in five Canadians are skipping meals, and over a quarter of food banks have seen their use doubled from historical norms. To further insult the hard work of Canadians, the grocery rebate contained within the legislation would not even cover half of the inflationary costs of groceries purchased by the average family of four, not that expanding the rebate is the solution. One cannot tax and spend one's way out an inflationary cycle. It is due to the actions of the government that Canadians are struggling, yet its ill conceived answer to the problem of runaway spending is to raise taxes. Is it not the height of irony to give back to Canadians' money that was ripped away from them by the tax increases? Is it not further insulting to pretend these proposed rebates would solve the rising cost of living, which the government's spending has partially created? These rebates would not return to Canadians the money taken from them, let alone cover the rising cost of living, which has already driven many struggling Canadians over the edge, nor would it address the underlying drivers of this inflation, namely the spending itself. There is a well known adage that you have to spend money to make money. It is straightforward and easy to understand. However, left unspoken in that simple phrase is the understanding that one needs to invest money wisely and to make a profit, yet while the government loves to spend the hard earned paycheques of Canadians, it does not know how to invest. The government, at the behest of the Prime Minister, over his tenure, has burdened Canadians with more debt than every single one of his predecessors combined. If members want to look at an example of failure to invest properly, they can just look at the track record of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Despite all that spending, there is no plan in place to balance the budget or control the inflationary deficits, which have driven up the cost of goods and, now, the interest Canadians must pay. Current projections of the government itself predict nothing but deficits far into the future. The national debt is likely to reach $1.22 trillion this year. Breaking that down into something Canadians can easily understand, that is nearly $81,000 per household in Canada. The cost of paying the interest on Canada's debt has nearly doubled since 2021 to a projected cost of $43.9 billion. Again, despite all that spending, Canadians are worse off today than ever. The dream of home ownership has all but died for young Canadians, as nine in 10 believe they will never own a home. The minimum down payment on the average home has more than doubled across Canada under the government. The average cost of a mortgage has gone from $1,400 to more than $3,100. In 2015, the cost to rent a one-bedroom apartment was, on average, $973. Today it is $1,760. Prior to the Prime Minister taking office, the average Canadian only needed to spend 39% of their paycheque to make monthly payments on their house. Today, that number has risen to 62%. By every objective measurement, things are more expensive, and Canadians are taking home less. Despite that fact, the proposed budget would only continue down the path of more spending while taking more and more from hard-working Canadians. Returning to the issue of home ownership, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has stated that more than three and a half million new homes must be constructed before affordability can be restored. Conservatives demanded that the government include a provision in the budget to remove government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits. However, as with every other common-sense proposal, the government turned a deaf ear to the plight of Canadians. The government has even ignored its own promises and commitments. The Minister of Finance promised in this chamber one year ago that the government was “absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline. Our deficits must continue to be reduced....This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we shall not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.” Here we are a year later, and the Prime Minister has crossed that red line. I have three commercial harbours in my riding. People in Chatham-Kent—Leamington understand that an anchor is not supposed to float. It is supposed to hold and remain fast, not float within a year of being uttered. It begs this question. What in this budget will be like that anchor, and we will be standing here a year from now describing that? What is going to float away over the next 12 months despite there being ample room to cut back on unnecessary spending? Despite the pandemic being virtually over, government spending is still up $120 billion compared to prepandemic levels. In 2019, our program spending was $323 billion. The spending for this year by the government is projected to be $447 billion. Once again, it must be said that the government spends, it does not invest, all the while raising taxes as its unsustainable expenses continue to restrict and deny the well-being and future opportunities to our children and grandchildren. From the work at the agricultural committee, we have heard from expert witnesses how food insecurity is a growing crisis. The typical disposal income spending for food in Canada has historically been around 9% of disposable income. It is now upward, closer to 14%. Testifying at committee, Chief Byron Louis expressed how first nations communities had been devastated by the rising cost of food. Even first nations communities that are comparatively close to the Canada-U.S. border are having trouble, with many having to resort to food banks just to feed their families. It has even been more challenging for those who live in remote or northern regions. As costs continue to rise unabated, these communities will only have a harder time of it. It is an abdication of duty to allow this to continue. The solution is simple. Reckless spending that the government refuses to address, let alone reduce, must stop. How can we continue to allow our children to go hungry in one of the wealthiest nations in the globe? Can we call ourselves a truly democratic nation if we let the most vulnerable go hungry? Where is the accountability? Simply ignoring the financial problems crippling Canadians will not make them go away. As a farmer, I cannot begin to express how frustrating it is to hear that our children are going hungry because their parents cannot afford groceries. We produce more than enough food in Canada to feed Canada. It is the actions of government, the current government, that have seen the proliferation of food insecurity across our great nation. It is abundantly clear that this food insecurity seen across Canada is the result of rising costs, not an inability of farmers or our food value system to provide. Instead, farmers are raising costs as a result of more taxes, the impact of the carbon tax on transportation and the rampant inflation affecting every input. Canadians are being priced out of their own grocery stores. It is a travesty and it must not be allowed to happen. It cannot be stressed enough that Canadians are living in desperation, skipping meals, living in their parents' basements, unable to drive to work, falling into depression and even considering suicide because they cannot afford the bills imposed upon them over the past eight long years. This budget makes all those pressures, all those pains and all those costs even worse. This proposed budget cannot and should not be approved for the sake of every Canadian.
1503 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 1:36:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to nail down the Conservatives on a substantive policy. In parts of his speech, the member said that the grocery rebate was a good idea. In other parts of his speech, he said it was a bad idea. We have also heard members on the other side sometimes say that the Volkswagen idea is a good idea. Then they sometimes say that it is a bad idea. It depends on which member of the Conservative caucus is standing. The Conservative Party has no plan. There is no depth to its policy. Could the member give a very clear indication on whether he supports the grocery rebate, yes or no? Does he support the investment that is bringing Volkswagen to St. Thomas, Ontario, yes or no?
131 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 1:36:56 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, this member very much supports a balanced fiscal approach that reduces and gets rid of the need for a grocery rebate. If one is looking for places to bring that up, there were $21 billion in consultants fees. Why do we need a grocery rebate? It is because of inflation. Where is the inflation coming from?
58 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 1:37:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly my point. That is the driver of inflation. Are there good ideas, yes, but every creature on this earth must live under the law of scarcity. Priorities must be made.
35 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/1/23 1:37:44 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-47 
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Conservative colleague's speech, and I must admit that he placed a great deal of emphasis on the importance of having a balanced budget and sound finances. I do not disagree. I think he will be happy to hear me say that. I am in no way opposed to a balanced budget. On the contrary, it is a good thing to have a balanced budget in many circumstances. After listening to him, though, I get the impression that things are all doom and gloom, that everyone is on the verge of bankruptcy come tomorrow morning and that, if this continues, the government is going to hand the keys to Parliament over to the banks. However, if we look at the budget closely, there is a nice chart showing Canada's debt forecast for the future, and it would seem that, by the year 2055, Canada—the federal government—will be debt free. In the meantime, local governments, such as provinces that would like to become countries, are burdened with debt, while the federal government has plenty of financial leeway. I would like to know whether my colleague is concerned about the fact that the federal system we are stuck with is financially suffocating the government of Quebec, in particular, as well as the other provinces. That is where the money is most needed.
232 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border