SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 233 - Oct/17/23

Hon. Steven Guilbeault (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Oct/17/23 3:24:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that in a recent podcast on a very popular Canadian show, one of her ex-advisers to the federal NDP and many provincial NDPs was asked, point-blank, what he thought people would remember of this Liberal government. He said that they would remember it as the first government to take climate change seriously in the history of Canada. I agree with this NDP adviser. We are the first government in the history of Canada to take climate change seriously, which is why we have put forward more than 100 measures to fight climate change. It is working. We have reduced emissions in Canada by the equivalent of removing 11 million cars from our roads.

125 words

The Speaker

Oct/17/23 3:25:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

It being 3:25 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, October 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-49. Call in the members.

45 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/17/23 3:27:41 p.m.
Watch

The question is on the amendment.

6 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/17/23 3:41:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

I declare the amendment defeated. The next question is on the main motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

58 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/17/23 3:42:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/17/23 3:54:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 25 minutes.

41 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/17/23 3:55:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I left off talking about the importance of the government, and ultimately the Liberal Party, being somewhere between the two prisms that we see in the House. As I said, the Conservative opposition day motion is not binding on the government. The opposition party has not put forward any detailed plans of what exactly it would cut in terms of program spending. I think it is important, and it is incumbent upon the government to find that fiscal pathway. It has been mentioned in the House, both during question period and indeed during this debate, that Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7. We also have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have an AAA credit rating. Those things are important, but they are never recognized on the other side of the House. Can we do more? Absolutely. I am proud of the work that the President of the Treasury Board has done in terms of signalling a program review to look at departmental savings. I think that is a great start, and members know that part of what I talk about a lot in the House is non-cost measures. I am evangelical in terms of reducing red tape, and I think that there is more work, respectfully, that the government can do on that front. However, it is incumbent upon all members of Parliament to actually be providing reasonable solutions, ways that we can do that. I will be presenting a private member's bill tomorrow, in which I will be calling on the government to adopt, either in the fall economic statement or in budget 2024, reduction of the regulatory tape around approvals for products that matter for farmers. I will have more to say about that. There is a lot we can do, but at the same time, we have to walk a careful balance because Canadians are relying on the programs that we have. The point I want to make before I give way to my hon. colleagues and engage in some great debate questions is on the assumption of getting back to balance tomorrow, which I think is a laudable goal and something we should be working towards. The assumption is that if we did that tomorrow, all of a sudden interest rates would drop precipitously. I do not think that is going to happen. With respect, I think that it is a bit immature or disingenuous for the opposition party to suggest that interest rates, tomorrow, would go from 5.5%-plus all the way down, back to normal rates. That is not going to happen, and there are a lot of global factors that play into that. As I have said, I think we could actually welcome a very mature debate about monetary policy and how, of course, the Bank of Canada is working to do its job. However, there are other factors that are global in nature in the way that our economy actually works right now and that are fighting against our monetary policy. There are global conflicts that we have talked about, such as the war in Ukraine. There is a new war between Israel and Hamas. There is climate change, and there are demographic challenges and supply challenges. These challenges are leading to increasing costs such that the Bank of Canada, notwithstanding its work, is going to struggle to be able bring down interest rates. I will leave it at that, and I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

591 words

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

Oct/17/23 3:59:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with my colleague on a number of committees along the way. I heard his comments with respect to our immaturity. However, I would call the Liberals' policies an abject failure. The price of housing has doubled. Rents have doubled. Food bank usage is up three to five times. We have had numerous witnesses before the finance committee come and say that things have never been worse, yet the Liberals keep telling Canadians that things have never been better. Maybe it is different in Kings—Hants than it is in Northumberland—Peterborough South, but times are tough. We need serious government and not this immaturity.

115 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/17/23 4:00:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my comments were never meant to draw the ire of the opposition. It is simply that when I read the text of the motion and what the Conservatives are proposing, the idea that it would bring interest rates back to balanced is unrealistic. I do not mean to offend the opposition party. I know they have tough skin on that side. This government is trying to walk a balance between being fiscally prudent and making sure the programs that matter to Canadians are in place. They talk about going back to balance. I think that is important. The government has already shown some steps in the right direction. My question for the Conservatives is this: What programs that matter to Canadians would the Conservatives like to see taken away to help us get back there? That is an extremely important question.

143 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Oct/17/23 4:00:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think that there are some things on which we can agree. First, public spending is needed in times of crisis, that is obvious. Even when we are not in a crisis, public spending is needed, which can sometimes create deficits. Of course, balancing the books must not be synonymous with brutal austerity, like in the disastrous days of triumphant neo-liberalism. At the end of the day, what this motion calls for, despite the Conservatives' usual overblown rhetoric, is the introduction of a plan. To govern is to anticipate, as they say. The government will table a plan. When this plan is before us, we will debate it to see whether it is a good plan to get back to a balanced budget. What is wrong with that?

131 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/17/23 4:01:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. In normal times, I would try to respond in French, but that was an extended question. I want to give the best answer possible. We are going to have a great debate on the fall economic statement, where the Minister of Finance will provide an update on the fiscal finances of the country, including what the government intends to do in the days ahead. Therefore, that debate is coming. I agree with the hon. member that the conversations that need to happen are important. The opposition day motion, as I said earlier in my speech, and the member may not have heard it, is not necessarily constructive public policy discussion on where we need to go, what programs we need to consider or whether we are able to actually extend programs that I know some members in this House would like to see. However, maybe now is not the time to be able to extend them in the extenuating circumstances that we are in. I would encourage the member to look to the fall economic statement. Hopefully, he and I can continue this really important discussion at that moment.

193 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Oct/17/23 4:02:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I only caught the last three minutes of the member's speech, but I heard him touch on some things, and he has presented to the House that he is indeed fiscally responsible and looking for some cost recovery in some of the programs and services. However, when he speaks of balance, I have never heard that particular member talk about the out-of-control compensation for CEOs and the profiteering of big corporations. It seems that much of the discussion around inflation is centred on the Bank of Canada, where we have Conservatives blaming the government and the Liberal government blaming workers. Whether it is regarding this particular matter, the fall economic statement or the budget he has proposed, we have a scenario where, in 2021, the highest-paid CEOs made $14.3 million or collectively brought in $1.4 billion, while the good hard-working people I know in Wolfville are still struggling to get by on their average salaries for everyday Canadians. What does he have to say about that?

175 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/17/23 4:03:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize that my hon. colleague has ties to Acadia University, having played on the men's football team. We share an affinity for the beautiful Annapolis Valley. We differ on ideology. I think it is important and incumbent on corporate leaders that they are mindful of the circumstances we are in. That is exactly why the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry called grocery CEOs to talk about the fact that they need to be part of these responsible solutions. However, suggesting that corporate CEOs might be rigging a system or that they are against Canadians is dangerous talk. I do not want to say the word “villainize”, but it is very similar to the extreme right, which sometimes projects itself either in Canadian or federal politics. We have to understand and be proud of our Canadian leaders, as well as to call upon them when necessary to make the difference alongside government.

161 words

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

Oct/17/23 4:04:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my remarks by saying I will be splitting my time with the spectacular member for South Surrey—White Rock. My comments are in no way related to the fact that she happens to be our whip. That is just a bit of levity. I want to paint a picture here because, as I said in my question for the member for Kings—Hants, we are in serious times. We are in perilous times. When we look around the world with respect to foreign policy and see what is happening in Israel and Ukraine, we see that it is a time that requires serious leadership. Back here in Canada, things are not all rosy either. Canada's debt for 2023-24 is projected to be $1.2 trillion. That might be hard for the average individual to contemplate and get their head around. I know it is for me. However, that is $81,000 per household. That means people wake up in the morning and their starting place is $81,000 in debt. That is particularly troubling, because Canadians themselves, as individuals, are the most in debt in the G7. Therefore, the amount of debt and burden that is being piled on Canadians is, at some points, overwhelming. As has been famously said, the first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging. Unfortunately, the Liberal government continues to dig the hole deeper. This year, the PBO said that the deficit will be closer to $46.5 billion. We have heard some chatter in this House already with respect to the fall economic statement. I look forward to seeing that document. I am the eternal optimist. I am hopeful that there will be some type of path for fiscal sustainability, a fiscal anchor and a return one day to a balanced budget. However, given the last budget, in which the government pushed back the date for a balanced budget from 2030 to never, perhaps my optimism is a little exaggerated. Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio, which is the other number the Liberals use, is the fiscal anchor that the Minister of Finance put before Canadians and said would never go up. Then, six months later, it did go up. The challenge too, even with the debt-to-GDP ratio, is that it does not take into consideration the per capita calculation. Canada's population is growing. Of course, as all Canadians do, I think that is a great thing. We are growing the number of Canadians, and that is terrific; however, the challenge is that the GDP is not keeping up with the population growth. Our per capita GDP, which in layman's terms just means the amount of money Canadians are earning, is going down. Therefore, while there are more Canadians, they are earning less money. That is challenging. We are getting poorer as a nation as the government takes a larger portion. After eight years, we have a debt at $1.22 trillion and a deficit approaching $50 billion at the end of this year. We are digging that hole even deeper. We simply can no longer afford the Prime Minister and the Liberal government, as they continue to pound Canadians into the ground with more debt, which is now $81,000 of debt per Canadian household. It does not stop there. Obviously, that money will have to be recovered somehow. The former governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, recently said at the finance committee that the government will have to do one of two things, which is to cut spending or raise taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. We have no doubt that the government will be raising taxes. If I were a homeowner, I would not be shocked. However, I would be a little worried that the government will start taxing the principal residence exemption. It has a track record of seeking taxes wherever it can get them, and it will be increasingly desperate as we go forward to collect revenue from Canadians. There would be not only direct taxation but also indirect taxation. When there is deficit spending, and the government continues to spend, that increases the money supply, which increases inflation. If members do not believe me on that, they can just ask a former Liberal finance minister, John Manley. He recently stated that, because the government keeps pushing on the inflationary pedal, the gas pedal or the spending pedal, that is forcing Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, to push down on interest rates in order to fight inflation. Therefore, we have fiscal policy, which is what the Liberals are doing. They are spending more and more money increasingly recklessly, such as $50 million on the arrive scam. This is causing inflation, which is making everything more expensive. As a result of that increased inflation, the Governor of the Bank of Canada is having to increase interest rates, which is increasing the cost of housing. As I said, after eight years, Canadians simply cannot afford the current government. Let us look at the current housing situation and how it is going. It might be different in other provinces and other communities, but in the towns of Cobourg, Port Hope and Brighton, it is nearly impossible to get a rental property. If someone wants to get so much as a one-bedroom apartment, they are looking at $2,500, at least. That is a wild amount of money. If someone is fortunate enough to be able to buy a house, mortgage payments have now gone up from an average of $1,500 a month to $3,000 a month. Therefore, inflation is taking a larger and larger chunk of paycheques. We have taxation that actually takes up more than transportation, housing and food combined. The government is taking a larger and larger share of Canadians' increasingly smaller paycheques. As I said, if someone is trying to rent in Port Hope or Cobourg, they are looking at a cost of $2,500 or $3,000. They are looking at a mortgage payment well in excess of that. I want to share a little anecdote. This is an actual email that I received from one of my constituents. It says the following: “[My wife and I] have good jobs and are very thankful to have what we have. We have yet to own a home together in our 5 years of marriage and have been continually renting with our two young children. “We are again very thankful to have what we have. We are able to secure approximately $400k for a down payment from selling a property I owned in a different city before we were married.... “We were recently trying to purchase our first home together with a listing price of $800k. This means we would be putting 50% down”. They are two well-heeled individuals, making good incomes and they would have a mortgage payment of approximately $2,200 a month. The email continues: “After redoing our budget with the rising costs of groceries, gas, and everything else, we would be in a monthly deficit of between $1,000-$3,000. We have no debts, no car payments and believe we are financially responsible people.” The constituent goes on to ask, “if people like us have decent jobs and a large amount saved and cannot even afford a home these days, who can?” These are serious times. These are people who have done everything right. They have had their priorities right. They have saved their income. They got good jobs. They have worked hard for the community, for our country and for their children. The deal is broken. It used to be, in 2015, when houses cost half as much and when food was a fraction of the cost, that these individuals would be rewarded with being able to afford a house, being able to afford a steak dinner once a week and maybe even, God forbid, being able to go on vacation. Increasingly, the great thief of our prosperity is the current Liberal government. Canadians cannot afford the Liberals. After eight years, they have done nothing but bring us into poverty and away from prosperity. We need a common-sense leader, and I cannot wait for the member for Carleton to be our next prime minister.

1409 words

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

Oct/17/23 4:14:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, the member started off by being critical of the amount of debt that the Government of Canada has acquired. They understand very clearly that most of the debt that was accrued was during the pandemic. Billions and billions of dollars were spent to support small businesses, individual Canadians, seniors, people with disabilities and so forth; the Conservative Party supported a lot of that. With hindsight, the Conservatives are saying we should not have spent the billions of dollars that they supported at the time. That is one issue. Actions speak louder than words. The member says he is concerned about inflation. The government is also concerned about inflation; that is the reason we brought forward Bill C-56, which would provide literally hundreds of thousands of new homes in the years ahead for rental properties. The Conservatives' response is to filibuster the legislation. They will not even let the legislation pass. Why is the Conservative Party so out of touch with the reality of what Canadians are facing today?

171 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Oct/17/23 4:15:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the member's passion, if not the substance, of his remarks. Let us look at history and the facts. Every year prior to the pandemic, the Liberal government had a deficit. The government is now spending $120 billion more than prior to the pandemic. In addition to that, there was $200 billion of non-COVID-related expenditures during the pandemic. These monies were spent on things like arrive scam. There was millions of dollars for fridges for Loblaws and millions of dollars for Mastercard. These are not proper ways to spend money. Yes, we will debate this, and if we are skeptical of some of your solutions, forgive us since you have doubled household costs and put us into poverty.

125 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/17/23 4:16:02 p.m.
Watch

I would remind hon. members that I did not do that as the Chair. Let us make sure we run our questions through the Chair. The hon. member for Drummond.

30 words

Drummond

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Oct/17/23 4:16:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, sometimes, once in a generation, the Conservatives have an idea that makes a modicum of sense. Unfortunately, they always hide their good ideas behind wacky political stunts. Last June, the Bloc Québécois supported a similar motion calling for a plan to return to balanced budgets. We believe that this is the reasonable and responsible thing to do for a government. Governments need to have some idea of what is ahead. The Conservatives are once again trying to force the government to table a road map to balanced budgets. However, they want it in a few days only, by October 25. If it is so important—and we believe it is— why are the Conservatives once again sticking this inside a political black pill that is impossible to swallow and that they will then use to show that the Liberal government has stumbled and not delivered? The Liberals are perfectly capable of doing that themselves without “gotcha” motions.

167 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Oct/17/23 4:17:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his good questions and good work. One day, before I retire, I hope to answer completely in French. We agree that we need to balance the budget. If the member is asking us why we are blaming the Liberal government, it is because of eight years of failure. After eight years, it has driven the car in the ditch. I do not know who else to blame.

74 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Oct/17/23 4:17:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I often enjoy my debates with the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. He likes to reference his economic theory. He did some of that today in talking about the out-of-control housing crisis we have, what I affectionately call the crisis of capitalism. I would like the hon. member to reflect on this. In 2013, in Hamilton, the average house cost was $350,000. The high end of a unionized carpenter's salary was $42 an hour. Fast-forward 10 years and the high end for a unionized carpenter's salary is $48 an hour, but the same home the carpenter builds has now doubled in price, to over $700,000. That is what we are looking at now. The reality is that the surplus value of the labourer's work, the money he or she is building and wealth he or she is creating in this country, is going somewhere, but who is not going to? It is not going to the worker. My question for the hon. member is on his economic theory. When he looks at the crisis of capitalism and the housing crisis, would he at least have the courage today to stand up and talk about where the surplus value of labour is going? It is not going to the working class but to Bay Street, the banks and big developers.

231 words