44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 1, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, the energy transition has been under way for quite some time. When I explain to my constituents that the government is going to help companies like Muskrat Falls, it is shocking. With all the taxes paid by Quebec taxpayers, we managed to get Hydro-Québec.
On top of that, the Liberals are creating obstacles for the energy transition by helping the oil companies. It is very difficult to explain this to people, because Quebeckers are ready. We have the resources. We need investments, but the government refuses to step up.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Laurentides—Labelle talked about better support for seniors. Not only was the Canada disability benefit not included in budget 2023, but the governing party drafted the legislation so as to eliminate the benefit for people with disabilities when they reach age 65. A disability does not go away at age 65, and neither should the Canada disability benefit.
What does the member for Laurentides—Labelle think of that?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, are we surprised? No, because there are two classes of seniors. Accordingly, it is clear the government will continue using a system that isolates people instead of looking at the broader community.
The Bloc Québécois is very sensitive when it comes to this; we do not believe in stigmatizing people.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand up and speak to Bill C-47, the Liberals' budget bill. Certainly, I have had an opportunity to speak with my constituents with respect to the concerns that they have about this Liberal legislation. The thing that has been raised the most is that, going into the budget, they were told by the Liberal finance minister that there would be some fiscal restraint. Maybe for the first time in the Liberals' eight years in power, there would be a commitment to fiscal common sense. However, that certainly did not happen in this budget; we now see a $43-billion deficit. If that is the Liberals' definition of fiscal restraint, I would hate to see what happens when they turn on the taps and say that they are going to spend unreservedly.
When it comes to Canadians, the Liberals are now asking every single Canadian family to contribute an additional $4,300 to the Liberal government coffers to pay for their spending. I want Canadians across the country to have a different perspective on what the Liberals are asking them to do. I am asking Canadians to consider themselves shareholders in the corporation of Canada. Every single Canadian is a shareholder in this country. When the Liberals say they are taking on this debt so that Canadians do not have to, it is extremely misleading. The main funder of this corporation of Canada is the Canadian taxpayer. Therefore, if I am the Liberal Minister of Finance and I am asking Canadians to fund our $43-billion deficit spending with an additional $4,300 per family, as the shareholder of that company, the first question I am going to ask is this: “What is my return on investment? What is my ROI on an additional call-out for cash from the Liberal government?”
If the Liberal government has to explain to Canadians what their ROI is on that additional tax grab, it is a pretty tough sell. We Canadians have a $30-billion-plus Infrastructure Bank that has not built a single project. We have chaos at the airports. We cannot get a passport if we want one. People might not be able to get their questions on their tax returns answered by the CRA. The carbon tax is going up, and we are going to have skyrocketing inflation and food prices. We have lost the respect of our most trusted trading partners. We cannot fund our own military and defend ourselves or respond to crises around the world. Other than that, Canadians' investment is well spent with the Liberal government in the corporation of Canada.
How would any common-sense Canadian feel that this has been a good return on their investment? I would say that there is not a single Canadian who would say that the current Liberal government has been a good steward of Canadian tax dollars. I would say there is no government in Canadian history that has spent so much to achieve so little. I do not think there is a Canadian government in history that has spent so much on the bureaucracy and the public service to see it come to a state of such dysfunction. I do not think there is a Canadian government in history that has been so committed to taxing Canadians into submission.
I do not think there is any better example than the Liberals' carbon tax. At a time of 40-year record-high inflation and a struggling economy coming out of COVID and the pandemic, no other government in the world was increasing taxes through a carbon tax. Our number one trading partner, the United States, does not have a carbon tax; the carbon tax is putting us, our farmers, our ranchers, our food producers, our manufacturers and Canadian industry at a stark competitive disadvantage.
What makes it more frustrating for those Canadians who are being asked to contribute more to the Liberals' out-of-control spending is that the Liberal carbon tax has been proven to be a sham. The latest reports confirm that the Liberals have not met a single environmental emissions target they have set for themselves. Now the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what we have pretty much known all along, which is that the carbon tax costs Canadians more than they get back from the Liberals' sham of a rebate. In fact, it is going to cost every Canadian family and certainly every Alberta family about $1,500 a year. What a surprise that Canadians are not better off paying a higher tax. I would ask the Liberal government to show me any tax that has made Canadians better off.
We knew this when the Liberals brought in the carbon tax rebate for farmers that was supposed to make farmers whole. It was going to be revenue-neutral. However, we have now seen the numbers, and farmers get about 15% back in the carbon tax rebate from Bill C-8. This is nothing new.
The Liberals have been telling Canadians for years that they get more money back than they pay in the carbon tax through rebates, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer made it glaringly clear that this is not the case. It is costing Canadians money. Rather than admit their mistake and say that the carbon tax is a scam, the Liberals are doubling down. They increased the carbon tax again on April 1, and on July 1, it will be imposed on Atlantic Canadians: happy Canada Day.
What the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition does not understand is that there are very real consequences to these types of decisions. For example, when the carbon tax is tripled by 2030, it will cost an average Canadian farm $150,000 a year in carbon taxes alone. It is going to put the financial viability of Canadian agriculture and agri-food in jeopardy. It makes us uncompetitive. We already had the most expensive harvest in Canadian history last year, and this is only going to add to those input costs.
For the average Canadian, the consequences are very simple. Higher carbon taxes mean higher production costs and higher prices at the grocery store. Every single Canadian is paying the price for the carbon tax coalition, and they are paying for it at the grocery store when they buy bread, pasta, fruit, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs. They are paying for it over and over again.
I had a constituent family with four kids tell me their grocery bill went up $700 a month. I do not know very many Canadian families that could afford that. Again, we are seeing the consequences of that when one out of five Canadian families is skipping meals because they cannot afford groceries. They cannot afford to put food on the table for their families. They are having to make that decision to pay their mortgage and their heat and power bills by skipping a meal.
We had the CEO of the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto come to the agriculture committee a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about food security. His comment was that their numbers in March quadrupled from what they would normally see in visitors to the food bank. He called the numbers they are seeing “startling” and “horrific”. He has been quoted as saying, “we are in a crisis. The Daily Food Bank and food banks [in Toronto] are at a breaking point”. There are very real consequences when we increase costs and taxes on Canadians and food production. The numbers we are seeing at the food bank are a direct consequence of that.
Canada's food price index is showing that groceries for a family of four are going to go up another $1,000 in 2023. Unfortunately, it is only going to get worse if the Liberal government continues with the policies it is imposing. A recent study that came out last week from Dalhousie University is bracing Canadians for even higher food prices. The study says that, by 2030, the average food price is going to go up 35%. Bread will go up 35%; dairy, 40%; fruit and vegetables, 29%; and meat, 45%. That is what may happen if the Liberals continue on this ideological policy drive that they are on. Increased carbon taxes are increasing production costs, regulation and red tape on transportation and supply chain, which means direct costs to Canadians.
The solution to higher food prices and higher food costs is simple, and one of the steps the Liberals could take is eliminating the carbon tax. It is not meeting any environmental targets that they are setting themselves, and it is certainly causing more pain than anything else. When the carbon tax is tripled, it may cost an average Alberta family $2,200 a year.
In conclusion, I ask the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition to reflect on the hurt and the pain they are putting on Canadians. In fact, the NDP used to be the party of Canadian farmers. I wonder why it has lost that support over the years. Maybe they should take some time to reflect on what happened.
We cannot support this budget. As Conservatives, we are going to stand up for Canadian families and affordability, not the ideological policy that is hurting Canadians.
1566 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, putting a price on pollution can ensure that, at the end of the day, we keep this country clean. Based on the fact that, at the previous Conservative convention, the Conservatives actually voted against a resolution and denied that climate change was real, does the member's party actually believe in climate change today?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The member can read our declaration. It is pretty clear.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge had a fantastic answer, but I will do my best to reiterate his point.
Climate change is real. Climate change is impacting every aspect. I live in a rural riding and I know farmers and ranchers talk about it on a regular basis. They see what it is doing, but Conservatives want to have real solutions to those problems that Canadians are facing. We are not going to have a carbon tax that is not meeting any emissions targets. All it is doing is adding additional costs and food prices for Canadians. We are going to solve this issue not through taxes but through innovation and technology.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/23 3:47:28 p.m.
- Watch
I hear somebody else trying to answer, but I did not recognize that gentleman.
The hon. member for Foothills.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear my colleague talk about the importance of agriculture.
If that is the case, I would like to know why, in the Standing Committee on International Trade, I sat through several filibusters on a bill that protects and promotes our agricultural model.
If agriculture is so dear to them, why did we waste so many sessions and weeks?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not too sure what the question has to do with my presentation on the budget. I do not think the bill the member is talking about impacts how we farm. It is a trade issue.
The importance of what he is addressing, what we have learned through COVID and some of the issues that the Liberal government is causing, is that we are losing the trust that we have with our most important trading partners. As an example, when Germany and Japan came to Canada asking for help with LNG so that they could cut their cord with Russia, the Prime Minister turned his back and said there was no business case for that. That is an embarrassment for our country and for us on the global stage.
Canada must use our agriculture and energy as the geopolitical tools that they can and should be.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Foothills is a real champion for agriculture, and agriculture is very important in my riding.
I know the farmers, orchardists and vineyard owners in my riding saw their gas prices go up three cents a litre this year because of the carbon tax. It is a provincial carbon tax in B.C. They saw the price of gas go up 80¢ a litre because of the greedflation around the world.
The president of Shell Canada has asked for a tax on excess profits, and the Government of the U.K. has implemented such a tax. Would the member support the NDP's call for a tax on excess profits so that we can raise billions of dollars to help farmers and others who need it across the country?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague, but the fallacy is in his question. Adding taxes, whether it is a windfall tax or a higher tax on the highest earners, does not reduce the costs. If I were to increase the tax on a company, is that company all of a sudden going to reduce its prices? No, it is not.
The fastest solution is to eliminate the carbon tax. That will eliminate those three cents that the member is saying his producers are worried about. Imagine, the NDP is supporting the Liberals and increasing the carbon tax. In B.C., people pay the carbon tax on any natural gas and propane imported from Alberta. They do pay it, and they pay the GST on top of that.
If the member wants to make life more affordable for the producers and farmers in his riding, the solution is scrapping the carbon tax.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad I was able to catch your eye and participate in the debate today, following my good friend the member for Foothills.
There is a disconnection between everything the government has said about fiscal restraint and the numbers contained in the budget this bill promises to implement. Some might call it the “pants on fire” budget. It puts a lie to everything the Liberals have said from the 2015 election to last year's budget.
Just last year, the minister stated, “We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline”. She also said, “This is our fiscal anchor—a line we shall not cross, and that will ensure that our finances remain sustainable so long as it remains unbreached.” The government did not waste any time in breaching that line. This bill would implement a budget with an increased debt-to-GDP ratio. The Liberals blew through that sacred line that quickly. This budget is the culmination of what is now approaching a decade of lies contained in three election campaigns, numerous past budgets and fiscal updates, and statements in the House and communities across Canada.
I will provide members with the solemn commitment that the Liberals made during the 2015 election. It states, “We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure and our middle class. After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.” That was not a casual, throw-away line; it was a critical point the Liberals made carefully, to differentiate themselves from both the Conservatives and the NDP.
The Liberals were the only party promising deficit spending, but they knew that there was political consensus at the time that budgets ultimately had to be balanced, and that Canadian voters would not vote for unrestrained, reckless and out-of-control spending without a clear and credible plan for a balanced budget within the mandate they were seeking. They made that pitch to Canadians. Even the NDP knew then that there was cross-partisan support, consensus even, that budgets had to be balanced. That is why the Liberals did that. They had this solemn promise to run modest deficits for a very short period of time in order to fund unprecedented infrastructure construction that would lead to economic growth that would allow the budget to balance itself. Every part of that critical, election-winning promise turned out to be untrue. They did not run a modest $10-billion deficit. They did not build unprecedented new infrastructure. The budget did not balance itself. Every single word in that promise was untrue.
Since winning the election in 2015, not one member of the government or its party's caucus has ever acknowledged having made that promise. It was a promise the Liberals made to differentiate themselves, and they broke it. The government treats its own election promises like things that can just be tossed into an Orwellian memory hole to be forgotten forever, as if they had never been spoken. I was present when the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly asked Bill Morneau in what year the budget would be balanced. He acted as if the Liberals had never made the promise, that it was something that could be ignored. It was the promise they made in order to win the election. Then this became the thing they would do, to talk about the ever-declining debt-to-GDP ratios. In the fall 2017 economic statement, the Liberals stated, “The Government will maintain this downward deficit and debt ratio track—preserving Canada’s low-debt advantage for current and future generations.”
There was nothing about balanced budgets and no apology for the fraudulent way they campaigned in 2018. In 2018, the Liberals used the words, “anchored by a low and consistently declining debt-to-GDP”. The fall 2018 economic statement states, “The Government continues to deliver on its commitment to strengthen and grow the middle class...while at the same time carefully managing deficits.” That is nonsense. Careful management of the deficit would be to not run one during a time of relatively stable and strong international economic expansion. The Liberals might have also thought about better managing Canada's debt and not being addicted to issuing short-term debt, which would protect Canadians from the higher interest rates that are now upon us.
The 2019 fiscal update said the Liberals were “continuing to reduce the federal debt relative to the size of our economy.” By February 2020, weeks before any world jurisdiction had taken economy-slowing COVID measures, Canada was on the brink of recession. Private sector economists had forecast Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was going to rise for the first time since the 2008-09 banking crisis. This was before COVID, so the Liberals ditched their lines about declining debt-to-GDP for a while.
The opposition warned the government that, during a time of relative global prosperity and growth, it was reckless to run uncontrolled structural deficits resulting from undisciplined spending growth and lowering growth through job-killing tax increases and terrible regulations like Bill C-69. We told the government that it was spending the cupboards bare and that it would leave Canada less capable of coping with a global catastrophe, such as a pandemic or a war in Europe. Of course, the opposition did not predict these things; nobody could have. The point is that unforeseeable events like pandemics, natural disasters, wars, financial crises and global political crises always happen. There has never been a multi-decade period in human history when these events have not happened, yet the Liberals spent their entire pre-COVID tenure pretending times would always be good, and the entire post-COVID period assuming things will just simply always naturally get better.
Look where we are today. Liberals have blown through their sacred promise of continuous decline in our debt-to-GDP ratio. The government has presided over a 53% bloat in the cost of the federal public service and record spending on outside private contractors at a time when service delivery has never been worse and the state of labour relations between workers and management, which means the Liberal cabinet, has never been worse. We are still in the midst of the worst public sector strike in Canadian history. How does one do that? How does one spend more than any government in history and have the worst record on service delivery and the worst strike? It is astonishing.
There are a number of things I want to go through. Liberals are now asking us to approve a bill with $70 billion in new spending and an increase of the deficit to $40.1 billion. Debt service charge is now at $44 billion a year and shortly going to $50 billion a year, with an increasing debt-to-GDP ratio, which is something they said could never happen. There are billions in losses projected at the Bank of Canada, the possibility of which they also dismissed out of hand when the opposition leader and I both raised it at the Standing Committee on Finance in 2020.
This bill has a host of tax increases on everything from air travellers to beer, wine and spirits. Of course, there is the carbon tax, which is a tax on everything and is something the Liberals also promised would never exceed $50 a megaton. They will now triple that amount. They have done all of this with absolutely no tangible path to fiscal reckoning other than just hoping for the best, having blown through their last promise in a long litany of broken promises going back to 2015.
I am not buying it. I oppose this bill, as I have opposed the government since I was elected. I will vote against implementing this budget, and I urge my NDP and Bloc colleagues to join me. They ran in opposition to the government. They were elected in opposition to the government. If they agree with me that the government is deceitful, arrogant, untrustworthy and incompetent, I beg them, in fact I double-dog dare them, to vote down this budget implementation act, bring down the government and let Canadians decide who will support this—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1428 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/23 4:01:19 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to know if “double-dog dare” represents an attempt at intimidation of the opposition.
20 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/23 4:01:34 p.m.
- Watch
I would say to the hon. member that that is a point of discussion and not a point of order.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Avalon.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that hon. member's speech was somewhat disappointing to many of us on this side.
Let us talk about election promises to get elected. I recall a time when former prime minister Stephen Harper sat in front of the cameras at NTV News in St. John's and promised to remove from the equalization formula the funds that come from resource development in our province. As soon as he got elected, he said that he did not say that. It is still on film at NTV News, if anybody wants to take a look at it. How can the member square that circle and condemn the government for not meeting its total obligations it may have made in the campaign? I ask because Conservatives wrote the book on that.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I love the fact that, when the members on the government side have nothing, they turn the clock back as far as they possibly can. We are talking about the current government, elected in 2015 on a pack of lies. I will take absolutely no lessons from that member on equalization or on any talk of how resources are developed and resource revenue.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, given that today is May 1, International Workers' Day, I want to ask my colleague a question about workers, or rather about workers who lose their jobs.
Beginning with budget 2021-22, the government intends to take nearly $17 billion out of taxpayers' pockets between now and 2030 by dipping into the EI fund. I think we can all agree that a reform will not be possible.
Is my colleague not upset about the fact that this government has no consideration for those who lose their jobs? We know that 60% of people who lose their jobs do not have access to employment insurance and that women and youth are particularly affected, because many of them hold non-standard jobs.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am terribly upset by the incompetence of the government and the growing backlog of cases at Service Canada.
Again, I challenge that member. If she is as upset with the government's incompetence, the government's deception and the terrible job the government is doing, will she vote against the budget implementation act?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
