SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 218 - Jun/21/23

Jun/21/23 8:08:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I would like to talk to him about something he did not cover, namely the fiscal imbalance. The Liberal government has too much money for its budget items, so it is spending like there is no tomorrow in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Then it tells us it has no money for critical expenses like health transfers. I hope no one will try to tell me that Quebec and the provinces wanted it this way. In classic style, they were given no alternative. What does my colleague think about the fiscal imbalance?

106 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/21/23 8:09:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was an important question about relations between the provinces and the federal government. Our government has made a lot of progress with the provinces on health agreements that add up to nearly $200 billion. We worked hard during the pandemic to help all the provinces with their expenses and their health care systems. It is very important that we continue to do so. Collaborating with all of the provinces in our beautiful country is very important.

80 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Jun/21/23 8:10:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have heard the Liberals say that they have everybody's back. I do not know about other members, but where I live, when I drive around, I see more homeless people than I have ever seen in my entire life. It can be seen right across the country. At least with the Conservatives, we know they are not going to build purpose-built housing. However, that is what the government promised. It is building approximately 7,000 units a year, on average. There are 300,000 people who have core housing needs right now. How is that having people's backs? This is a crisis. When is the government going to stop propping up its wealthy friends and its real estate income trusts and make sure it invests that money into making sure people have a place to live?

142 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Jun/21/23 8:11:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, housing is a core issue for all Canadians. What we are seeing here in Canada is what we are seeing worldwide. As part of the Canada-Europe delegation when we were in France two weeks ago, I saw the headline on Le Monde was “La crise du logement...”. It is an issue not only here in Canada. We are addressing it. We have the $4-billion accelerator fund. We have the rapid housing initiative. We are working with municipalities. We are working with provinces to ensure they receive the resources they need. We do know there are a lot of issues with zoning and housing that are at the city level. The cities are the creatures of the provinces. We understand it is in our Constitution. We ask members to please understand that our government is seized with this issue. We have been for many years. We will continue helping Canadians to ensure that, if they wish to purchase a home and have a roof over their heads, that we will be there for them.

179 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Jun/21/23 8:12:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to talk about a motion that is very clear and simple, but that has many negative consequences for my community of London and our country. To begin with, what was our government's approach during the pandemic? It was a compassionate and fair approach. It is compassionate and fair. So much so, that former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, just two days ago, entirely endorsed the approach taken by the Liberal government during the pandemic, and the leadership of the Prime Minister in particular. That speaks volumes about the current state of the Conservative Party. It is not the Progressive Conservative Party, obviously, as it is something that has existed officially for many years now after dropping the progressive part from the official name, but something, also more importantly, that its former leader now sees very clearly. Not once did former prime minister Mulroney mention the Leader of the Opposition's name in his comments, which I thought was quite interesting and quite telling, based on what is happening on the other side. I mention all of this, and my intent here tonight is not to be overly partisan, but since the motion itself is partisan from start to finish, I think it is quite fair to point out where current Conservatives stand in relation to giants of the Canadian Conservative political tradition. I mentioned Brian Mulroney. I could have also mentioned Joe Clark. What we ultimately have at stake here, if we look at the motion and think about it in broad terms, is a debate about the view of government. What is the place of government, particularly during trying times, during a time of inflation, which does exist? Not a single member on this side, not a single member in the House, regardless of their party affiliation, would deny that. It remains a hard time out there. I hear it from constituents. I make a point of regularly engaging the community. I do hear about the challenges they are facing paying for gas, rent and groceries. It begs the question of what approach should be taken during this time to address the challenges that Canadians are facing. On the one hand, we have an approach offered by the Conservatives, which very clearly states, and it is not even subtle as it is quite direct, that regardless of the context, regardless of the circumstances, people should fend for themselves. Every individual is responsible for their own actions. Therefore, if one takes that seriously, as my Conservative colleagues do, then individuals need to find their own way. While government should exist, it should provide the very basics in the form of a military, a police force and basic infrastructure, but apart from those things, it is up to the state to get out of the way to allow individuals to succeed or to fail. It entirely ignores, within that context, within that frame, the economic plight and position that one might be in to get to that outcome, whether it is success or failure. It is something devoid of context altogether. My friends on the other side and their leader are known to quote philosophers from time to time, including people such as Adam Smith, who they will use as justification for their policies. If one were to look at the work of Adam Smith, they would immediately recognize someone who had a very responsible point of view. He placed incredible priority not only on the rights of the individual but also on the community and the need of the community to support the individual. That is the context. That is the missing link from what Conservatives offer when they try to justify their policies. I just referenced a philosopher. There are other examples that one could give, where this approach is taken, unfortunately. On the other hand, we have the approach taken by the government. It is an approach that I support, and an approach that I think colleagues in other opposition parties, by and large, take seriously as well. It is the idea, the notion, that one needs to be there for individuals during very difficult times, particularly those who are most vulnerable. We can look at what the government has done, particularly in recent years and during this session of Parliament. Since it is our last day here, I think it is important to reflect on what has been achieved during the latest session of Parliament. Dental care, child care and things like this, which social champions for years have advocated for, have been put into place by this government and other parliamentarians. Yes, I look to colleagues in the NDP and thank them for their support. The government acted on these things and we see thousands of Canadians benefiting. Child care fees have been brought down already, cut in half at least, or even more in many provinces. I am quite confident that we will get to the level of $10 per day, certainly by 2026 if not sooner, across the country. Dental care is for children to start with, but it will be expanded. All Canadians who fall within the eligibility criteria will get access to a dentist, which they did not have before. There should never be a time when a Canadian lacks access to that very important part of health care. Dental care is health care. Oral health care is as important as the rest of health care. Those are some examples. I have limited time, but I could give many other examples of how the government is there for people. It needs to be there during trying times, particularly for the most vulnerable among us. The motion, as we see, calls for the budget to be balanced. On the face of it, how could one stand up against that? One has to think in terms of the consequences. For every action there is a reaction. It is a timeless truth. It is true of the sciences; it is true of public policy. I have asked this of my Conservative friends. Never once have they had an answer for what they would cut to get to a balanced budget. Would they cut pensions? They would have to. Would they cut unemployment insurance? They would have to. What about the historic health care deal that was finalized by this government in support of provinces and territories? They would cut that as well. The Conservatives voted for child care the other night at third reading. I was quite surprised, but I think it is a political ploy, because I know that if they were ever to form government, they would cut child care as well. What about the most important crisis of our time? Inflation is certainly the challenge if not the crisis of the moment. However, if we were to look more broadly and think in those terms, we would recognize immediately that climate change is our most important challenge. We have an obligation as parliamentarians to put that front and centre. Members can disagree with the actions taken with respect to carbon pricing, among other things, but this government has made it a priority. It has been said before that this government has followed the example of Brian Mulroney. It has been the government that, compared to others, has done the most in Canadian history to advance a climate change agenda. That would end should a Conservative government form, in particular under the opposition leader. I take it from his comments that he does believe in climate change, but I wonder if he really does, because if the solutions he has offered say anything, he in fact only believes in it as a slogan. He says this to get the attention of centrist voters and nothing more. These are the issues at stake. What would the Conservatives cut to get to a balance? They would cut all of it and leave behind a country that would be entirely changed. Stephen Harper made that commitment. He almost made it a reality. He said that if he became Prime Minister, we would not recognize Canada. Thankfully we recognize Canada still. However, we know the opposition leader would take that approach and multiply it tenfold. That is why I as a member of Parliament, joining with fellow colleagues on this side of the House, want to make clear that we stand against that every step of the way. We also stand against it for another reason. That side is completely irresponsible in offering anything concrete, apart from things like cryptocurrency as some sort of hedge against inflation. That is deeply irresponsible. It makes no sense in the current context. I wonder what colleagues on the other side are trying to do when they advocate for it. I will end my comments there. I look forward to questions on this important issue.

1485 words

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Jun/21/23 8:22:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify one thing. The member said the motion called for the government to balance the budget. Actually, the motion simply calls for a plan from the government to balance the budget. I thought it had one, because in November it tabled the fall economic statement, which called for a balanced budget in 2027-28. The member has equated, somehow through his warped logic, that balancing the budget equates to cuts. Given the fact that the government's plan is to balance the budget by 2027-28, what is it going to cut?

97 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/21/23 8:23:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member, because when we worked together on the finance committee a number of years ago, I thought we worked very well together. I am not sure what has happened for him to take a negative tone here tonight, but I think I see his sense of humour. I know where he is coming from. I know he raises those points in good nature. I will simply offer back what is very clear, and that is that the deficit is coming down in a very pronounced way. That is what happens when one focuses on setting the table in a way that encourages economic growth. That will continue. Where are the Conservatives on issues like the Volkswagen plant in the community of St. Thomas? That is just down the road from London, Ontario. They are against that investment and the 3,000 jobs it would create, not to mention the billions of dollars of economic growth that comes as a result of investments like that. What they are calling for in this motion would prevent Volkswagen from going forward.

185 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Jun/21/23 8:24:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I put the question to a Conservative colleague earlier. I am going to ask my colleague the same question because he tells us that he is concerned about the fight against climate change. In 2022, $275 billion was spent to clean up the mess. That same year, the five big oil companies made $220 billion in profits. This government, which spends a lot, but also very badly, because it prioritizes bad things, doled out $20 billion to big oil. It also put $30 billion into Trans Mountain. Does my colleague think that this is consistent with a desire to fight climate change? Does he consider this to be acceptable, wise spending?

117 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/21/23 8:24:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our government's approach is very responsible. My colleague and I disagree on this issue. What other option is there? I am not hearing any alternatives in my colleague's comments. Yes, he did raise concerns with what the government has done with respect to a number of things, namely Trans Mountain, but I would submit to him that if the government would have gone in the direction he prefers, we would have had thousands of Canadians out of work. The government made the right choice in that case. It was a choice in the national interest, a difficult one, but our environmental policy certainly provides a balance.

110 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/21/23 8:25:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I notice that my colleague said the “support” of the NDP, and I would like to say the “leadership” considering that only a few years ago, in the last government, he voted against that same dental care bill. However, I am really glad to see that he is now for it and sees the value of it. One of the issues we in London share, which is shared across the country, is the issue of affordable housing and renovictions. In my riding, which is very close to his, tenants at the Webster Street apartments have been facing renovictions, and there are serious consequences. We have called on the government to create a housing acquisition fund to ensure that rent remains affordable so that not-for-profits or cities can buy buildings that are being bought up by large market-based corporations. This is another great idea by the NDP. Could he comment on that?

160 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/21/23 8:27:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear from my colleague down the way in London—Fanshawe. First of all, on the specific issue she just raised, I need to see more in the way of that. We all care about housing here, and I did see her and the leader of the NDP in London raising this idea, but there is not much detail. There is precious little detail, so one cannot comment on that in any meaningful way. On the other issues raised, when the NPD raised dental care in the past, it was not an approach that left a lot of detail. I could not support it then. There is more detail now and I support it of course.

123 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Jun/21/23 8:27:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise tonight in this House of Commons, perhaps on the last of this cohort of Parliament. I will be splitting my time with the fabulous member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who was first elected in 2000 when she was 12 years old, the youngest parliamentarian in Canadian history. It is an honour and privilege to serve and to talk about this motion today. Of course, this is the Conservative Party's opposition motion, and I must say that it is very reasonable. I am hoping we will get unanimous support across the aisles on it. The motion raises the concept that we need a balanced budget. In fact, it does not even ask that the government commit to a balanced budget. We are merely asking it for a plan to get to a balanced budget. As my colleague from Manitoba said earlier, it is something the Liberals had in their plans less than nine months ago. In their fall economic statement, they actually called for a balanced budget in 2027-28. However, much has changed since then, including $60 billion in new spending and an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio, despite the fact that the finance minister said just nine months or so ago that we would not see an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio. She said, “This is a line we will not cross.” Well, the line was crossed, and now the trajectory is for the debt-to-GDP ratio to go up. Our motion notes the IMF has warned that Canada is at the most risk for a massive mortgage default. That is just a fact. I am sure everyone can agree with that. Average mortgage payments are up 122% since the Prime Minister took office. That is a fact too, just like saying the grass is green and the sky is blue. Canadian households also have the most debt as a share of GDP out of any country in the G7. Once again, that is just a fact. As I said, I am hopeful that we will get unanimous support for our motion. We are not even saying that the government needs to balance the budget. We are asking for a plan to balance the budget. Let me explain this a bit and give some context as to why the government may not support this motion. When we look at balancing the budget of a government, it is really, in high-level terms, not much different from balancing the budget of a household or a business. We have revenue on one side and expenses on the other. I am going to start by talking about revenue and the struggles the government is no doubt having and why it may not be able to get to a balanced budget. According to Philip Cross, former lead statistician for Statistics Canada, in the last decade, we have had the lowest economic growth since the Great Depression, since the 1930s in other words. It is 0.8% per capita over the last 10 years, which is basically stagnant or no growth over the last 10 years. That is a fraction of what it is in the United States, a fraction of what it is in Switzerland and a fraction of what it is in Ireland. We are an outlier given our poor economic growth per capita. It is true that if we look at the entire GDP of the country, there is a bit more of a positive note, but that is simply because we have had high levels of immigration. It is not really a great thing to say that even though we are bringing in newcomers, which is fantastic, we are not actually increasing the GDP per capita. We have newcomers coming in, but unfortunately they have economic struggles. They cannot find housing. Of course, we have had the recent immigration scandal with students. We need to be much more accommodating and welcoming to our newcomers, in my opinion, but that is a digression. The reality is that per capita GDP is at 0.8% over the last 10 years. That is the lowest in the G7 and the lowest in the OECD, and it is an absolutely abysmal number. Why is revenue so low on the government side? Why are we not getting that economic growth? Well, there are some policy reasons for that. One is that our productivity is among the lowest in the OECD and among the lowest in the G7. Productivity is measured in contribution to GDP per worker per hour. If we look at Switzerland, it is at $55. If we look at the United States, it is at $65. If we look at Ireland, it is at $84. These are 2018 numbers, and members can source them. These are countries without our land and without our incredible resources. Most notably, we have the hardest-working, most educated and smartest people in the world here in Canada, yet we have a lower productivity than most of the advanced economies. We are, to finish my story, at $50. There is a notable exception in Canada. We do have one sector of our economy that is absolutely blowing out the roof and doing fabulously. That is our energy sector, which is well over $500 per hour, 10 times as much as the average. What is the government doing? It is trying to eliminate Canadian energy. If our productivity numbers do not look good now, and they do not, in the absence of our energy sector we would be in deep trouble. Our prosperity as a country would be in jeopardy. We have that productivity issue. If we look under the hood at what is creating that productivity, that is another problem. There are a number of issues. One is we are forecast to have the lowest capital investment in the OECD over the next 20 years. All the numbers I am saying can be sourced and cited. When we do not have capital coming into the country to refurbish machines in factories, to build new buildings and to create new infrastructure, the infrastructure, equipment and buildings all go out of date, and that reduces our competitiveness. If we have a machine in a factory that was built in 2023 and we are competing against another factory that has a machine built in 1960, obviously the one built in 2023 is going to have a huge advantage, and the government is pushing away capital. How is it doing that? It is by adding uncertainty. Just in the most recent budget alone, there were two provisions for retroactive taxation. Retroactive taxation is going back in time and saying that someone was told their bill was X, but now it is being changed to Y. That is something we see in economies that are not advanced, something we see in countries with poor economic performance. That is something, quite frankly, that we see in authoritarian regimes. We cannot just go back in time and change what the bill was on the customer. In this case, it is the taxpayer. We are pushing away that capital. Another significant issue that is undermining our productivity numbers is our innovation framework. Our innovation framework in Canada is among the worst in the G7 and among the worst in the OECD. Canadians are producing great ideas. I say “ideas” instead of “intellectual property” because our ideas are not becoming intellectual property, as we do not have the appropriate government regulation and framework in place to capture those ideas and make sure that Canadians prosper from them. What is actually happening today, unfortunately, is that while our universities, our young people, our innovators and our entrepreneurs are coming up with amazing ideas and those ideas are actually becoming commercial successes, the trouble is that it is not in Canada. They are becoming successes in the United States of America. They are becoming successes in Ireland. They are becoming successes around the world, but not here in Canada, because we do not have the government framework to capture those ideas to put in place the precedent conditions to make sure we exploit those resources fully. Our ideas go offshore. They manufacture products and create services, with no money going to the Canadian public, and then they are sold back to us at an incredibly high price. We get hurt both ways. I wish I had another 20 minutes to talk, but I only have a minute left. I have only talked a little about the revenue side, but I will talk briefly about the expense side. The Prime Minister came into office saying that he would balance the budget within a couple of years. We never saw the budget get balanced. In the fall economic statement, we saw that there was a plan to balance the budget, yet we see no balance in sight now, according to the budget. When we have a government that is sucking the oxygen out of the economy, that is pulling the fuel from the economy and taking it out, it is slowing down the private sector, which is leading to a productivity crisis in Canada, which is putting the prosperity of our nation at risk. We need a leader and a government in this country that will balance our budget and turn hurt into hope for your home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

1589 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Jun/21/23 8:37:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the whole notion of productivity can be a little slippery. It is GDP per inhabitant, but especially in a country with a strong oil and gas sector like Canada, if the price of oil and gas goes up, then the productivity numbers will go up. The member was citing 2018 figures when the price of oil was rather low, so naturally Canada's productivity, using that simple measure of GDP per person, would have been low. The other thing about productivity is this. To ensure long-term productivity, we need innovation. Just having our productivity go up because the price of oil goes up does not mean we are innovating. To innovate, we need to invest in technology, especially green technology. To invest, we need money, and sometimes we need government money, so we are spending in the budget to invest in a clean technology revolution that is going to increase Canadian productivity in the long term in a sustainable way. That is what is important.

168 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/21/23 8:39:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill perhaps said it best when he said, “For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” The government does not create wealth; the private sector does. As the government takes more fuel from the private sector and wastes it on things like Asian infrastructure, “arrive scam” and numerous other government fiats, it will destroy our economy and continue to put the future of Canadians at risk.

92 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Jun/21/23 8:39:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to make a few suggestions to my colleague. When he was finishing his speech, he said that he only had one minute left and that he wanted to speak about revenues. The Conservatives talk about returning to balanced budgets, which is the right thing to do, but I would like to know how they will do that. Their speeches indicate that they want to embrace austerity. I have a few suggestions for my colleague that will not require austerity and will generate a lot of revenue. For example, funding and the extension of Trans Mountain could stop immediately. More than $30 billion has been spent on that project. We could also fight tax havens. To govern is to plan and anticipate. It is right and conscientious to have a plan to return to balanced budgets. However, will that happen? How will we achieve balanced budgets? What does my colleague think of my two suggestions?

160 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/21/23 8:40:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my answer is relatively easy. There are millions of dollars of waste. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been sent to the Asian infrastructure bank. There was $50 million to MasterCard. Millions of dollars went to Loblaws. There was millions of dollars for “arrive scam”. I am confident that when the Conservative Party forms government, we will be able to put in place the savings necessary to maintain the great social safety network we have while being prudent and ensuring our prosperity for years to come. With respect to pipelines, we would have never socialized the pipeline; we would have allowed the private sector to do it. We need Canadian energy because Canadian energy is keeping our economy afloat.

123 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Jun/21/23 8:41:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member spoke largely in slogans, and here is one for him. In the year 2000, 28% of just 15% was the difference in the corporate tax rate at that time. That difference made up a loss of revenue for the country. That loss of revenue disproportionately impacted our ability to fund and create programs. Another fact is that 1% of Canadians own 25% of Canada's wealth today. New Democrats are calling for a windfall tax to ensure what the member said would be made true or even truer, the idea that the private sector creates wealth. It is not the private sector; it is workers who create it. Why do they not have the advantage of getting good paycheques? It is because of the policies being put forward by the member from the Conservative Party, which are to just slash and burn and make sure that those who are poor continue to get less, while the wealthiest in this country continue to get away with the tax loopholes that continue to occupy their minds. What amount of money is enough?

184 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/21/23 8:42:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the marginal effective tax rate for people making under $50,000 is more than 50%, so when the member is calling for tax hikes, he is hurting the most vulnerable. The reality is that in Canada the corporate tax rate is 12% and in the rest of the OECD it is 9%, which is 30% to 40% higher. Neil Brooks, NDP member and my law professor, said to me many years ago that corporations do not pay taxes, but workers, shareholders and employees do. Therefore, when the member wants to slash and burn corporations, he is hurting workers, and that is what the NDP desperately needs to understand.

110 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Jun/21/23 8:43:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the fiscally responsible constituents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. The Ottawa Valley is as diverse as it is beautiful. The average day of a soldier in Petawawa is very different from a farmer's day. A nuclear scientist in Deep River has challenges very different from those of a logger in Wilno. Despite their different backgrounds and different daily routines, every single one of them understands what it means to be fiscally responsible. Listening to the Liberals and my colleagues, it seems as though the government has a different understanding. For most Canadians, to be responsible with money is to live within their means. Our finance minister's understanding of fiscal responsibility seems to be torn from the pages of a Disney fairy tale. Like a naive, entitled Disney princess, the finance minister has advice to Canadians struggling with inflation: “Let them eat Netflix.” Canadians should set aside the minister's advice on how to save on streaming costs. As with every other policy priority, the Liberals' goal is to make life unaffordable. This costly coalition's online streaming tax will only increase the cost of enjoying a movie. This costly coalition's carbon tax will triple the costs of anything that requires energy, which is everything. This costly coalition's clean fuel regulations will make gasoline more expensive, while simultaneously ruining two-stroke engines as a result of the added ethanol. This costly coalition's latest budget will only spur more inflation. Every extra dollar the out-of-control socialist coalition borrows and spends puts pressure on the Bank of Canada to increase interest rates. Every rate hike means more money going to wealthy bondholders and less money for critical services and national security. Canadians are drowning in a sea of rising inflation, and the Liberal plan is to throw water bottles at them. During his recent speech on the budget, the Conservative leader quoted from Ecclesiastes: What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. When it comes to the government, that quote hits hard. Canadians are learning that there is nothing new under the son of Pierre Trudeau. Just like his father, he swept to power with a mania that seemed to capture the spirit of the times. Within four years, that spirit was dead, and disillusioned Canadians returned a minority government. Like father, like son: Both cut expensive deals with the NDP. Both of them repudiated the fiscal policies of their Liberal predecessors. If someone told me when I was first elected that I would feel pity for the legacy of Paul Martin, I would have suggested they seek professional help, and here we stand in the wreckage and ruins of Canada's consensus that budgets should be balanced. After eight years of Pierre Trudeau, Canadians found themselves living with stagflation. After 16 years of Pierre Trudeau, Canada was on the brink of bankruptcy. Pierre Trudeau was in power for 16 years, and it took another 16 years just to get back to balance. After eight years of the current Prime Minister, the situation might be even worse than it was in 1984. As much as the Prime Minister would like to live in a fantasy world where budgets balance themselves, Conservatives believe in reality-based policy. The hard truth some Canadians will need to relearn is that progressive socialism always fails everywhere it is tried, because eventually they run out of other people's money. Unfortunately, progressive socialists never admit that they are economically illiterate and historically blind. When they have taxed away all of Canadians' income, they will come for their savings next. When progressive socialists turn government into a gravy train, we should not be surprised that groups of people begin to fight for the best seats on board, but it does not have to be this way, and it is not too late for the government to change course. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to come back with a plan to balance the budget. Canadians should remember that the Liberals claimed that they did have a plan. Originally, the plan was to run itsy-bitsy deficits of $10 billion for two years.

719 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Jun/21/23 8:48:25 p.m.
Watch

That extra $20 billion over two years was supposed to be invested in infrastructure. What happened when the plan met reality? They doubled their deficits and managed not to spend a single dollar on infrastructure. The Prime Minister thought he could snap his fingers and force the public service to get shovels in the ground. When that plan failed, he hired his friends at McKinsey to form a special advisory council, which recommended that the Liberals create an infrastructure bank as a way to leverage pension funds into investing in public infrastructure. In 2017, when the budget was supposed to be balanced, the Liberals announced plans for an infrastructure bank and even bigger deficits. Coincidentally, when the Liberals needed someone to run their expensive new bank, they appointed one of the members from the special advisory council, who just happened to be the head of the pension fund. At this point, Canada had taken on twice as much debt as the Liberals had promised; still, not a single new infrastructure project had been built. Coincidentally, when the fake infrastructure bank finally announced the first project it would be funding, it just so happened that the project was the very same one the head of the bank had previously lobbied for. The Liberals were so impressed that they made the head of the infrastructure bank the deputy finance minister. That would be the same deputy who oversaw this terrible budget, which commits massive subsidies to foreign tech companies and provincial electricity utilities. Coincidentally, that deputy finance minister and former infrastructure bank head has now left Ottawa to head up a provincial electricity utility. It is just truly remarkable how many coincidences pile up around Liberals and tax dollars, as when some advertising agencies all started making large donations to Liberals after receiving large contracts from the Liberals, or when the government ignored warnings about Communist interference, while former communist cabinet minister and defrocked ambassador John McCallum was encouraging the Communists to support the Liberal Party and warning them of the threat posed by a Conservative government. It is all just a coincidence. I can see from the angry faces across the aisle just how much they appreciate hearing the hard truth. I expect one will jump up shortly to ask me when I stopped beating my husband and how much I want to cut from child care and dental care. After eight years, they have become tired and predictable. The spending on child care and dental care is a tiny fraction of the government's massive deficits. The real money is spent on giant foreign corporations and provincial electricity utilities. This is all part of their green grift. This is the Telford and Butts game plan. In Ontario, they brought the Green Energy Act into force. It drove up the cost of electricity. It forced thousands of manufacturers to leave the province and destroyed 60,000 net jobs, according to the Auditor General. They used tax dollars to subsidize green energy corporations, which coincidentally were all run by well-connected Liberals. After that disaster, they packed up their taxpayer-funded moving vans and came to Ottawa to repeat the plan all over again. The federal government has been saddled with massive deficits to pay for massive subsidies to well-connected companies. Eventually, these progressive socialists will run out of other people's money, but it will be too late by then. They will have hopped on a private jet to go surfing in Tofino. Just like in 1984, Conservatives will have to come in and clean up the mess. It took 16 years of Chrétien slashing public sector payrolls to get Canada back to balance after 16 years under Pierre Trudeau. The longer it takes to throw out this costly socialist coalition, the longer it will take to clean up this mess. Conservatives have a saying: If it is not broken, do not fix it. In 2015, Canada was not broken, and we had a balanced budget. We had passport services we could rely on. Crime was continuing on a 25-year decline. However, the Prime Minister saw Canada as a racist oppressor state that needed fixing. Now our country is broken. Our social fabric is frayed, and our democracy is under attack. It does not have to be this way. Conservatives are ready to get to work. We will balance the budget, restore order and get Canada working again.

741 words