SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 252 - Nov/21/23

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Nov/21/23 4:57:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our government's fall economic statement announces new measures in order to get more homes built faster. The leader of the Conservative Party has called that, and I quote, a disgusting scheme. Why does the leader of the Conservative Party think that investments in the construction of 30,000 new rental apartments is disgusting? Why does the leader of the Conservative Party think that new federal investments for the construction of 7,000 new affordable homes is disgusting? The leader of the Conservative Party owes us and Canadians an explanation.

92 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/21/23 4:58:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, those houses cannot be characterized with any adjective other than “non-existent”. They do not exist. The Liberals stand up day after day and list off the thousands of houses that they have not built. They have had eight years. It would be one thing if they were still promising to build homes in their first year, maybe their second year; okay, we will give them three years. It has been eight years and the only thing they have accomplished on housing since promising to make it affordable is they have doubled the cost. They have doubled the rent, doubled mortgage payments, doubled the needed down payment for a home. Now we have $900 billion of mortgages that are coming up for renewal. That is two-thirds of all mortgages. The IMF says we are the number one at risk of having a mortgage crisis. It is disgusting to think of the families who did everything right and risk losing everything because of the irresponsible policies of this Prime Minister and his NDP government.

178 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Nov/21/23 4:59:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the Conservatives bickering with the Liberals, but they are really one and the same. The Liberals did not mention homelessness in the economic update, and nor did the Conservatives in their response. The Liberals are not talking about small businesses and are not helping them, since the government refuses to extend the repayment of the Canada emergency business account, or CEBA, loans by an additional year. The Conservatives never even mention it. The Liberals are doing nothing to help seniors. What are the Conservatives doing? They have nothing whatsoever to say about seniors. The Liberals have given $82 billion in assistance to oil companies. Will those folks over there talk about it and eliminate those subsidies? On the contrary, the Conservatives are lobbyists for the oil companies. The Liberals do not talk about housing at all. The Conservatives, meanwhile, decided to do something original. They decided to blame the municipalities and punish them if they ever find out that they are not building enough housing. It is a party of slogans and catchphrases. They have no substance. It is six of one and a half dozen of the other.

195 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/21/23 5:00:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is so angry. Give me a break. I cannot understand why he is upset, because his leader just said he is going to support the Liberals and keep them in power. I thought he was going to stand up and applaud all the great things the Liberals are doing, like increasing inflation, forcing interest rates to go up and drastically increasing the carbon tax. The Bloc Québécois wants this drastic increase and the Prime Minister agrees. The Bloc agrees with the Liberals on everything except the country's capital. That is the only sticking point it has with the Liberals. Fortunately, Quebeckers will be able to vote for a commons-sense party, a party that will lower prices and give people bigger paycheques. That is what common sense is all about.

139 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/21/23 5:02:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canada is not going to get out of the housing crisis we are in without significant investments in social and affordable housing, and the Liberals simply have not been building enough of that. We saw today that even the recapitalization of a program to build affordable housing is being put off until 2025. We never hear the leader of the Conservative Party talk about building new affordable and social housing. In fact, Canada is still losing way more affordable units than we are building. When he was housing minister, the government decided to cancel the operating agreements that made rents affordable in co-op and other forms of non-profit housing across the country. Will he finally start talking about the need to build more social and affordable housing in Canada to help address the crisis?

138 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/21/23 5:02:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been talking about almost nothing but making housing affordable for the last three years. When the NDP and the Liberals and the entire establishment were dismissing me, I told the country we were headed for a housing crisis. Now everybody is playing catch-up. Here is the problem for the NDP: The facts are that, when I was housing minister, one could rent the average one-bedroom for $950. Now, under the NDP-Liberal government, it is almost $2,000. One could buy an average home for a mortgage of $1,400 a month. Now it is $3,500 a month. The needed down payment for the average new home was $20,000; now it is well over $50,000. The NDP has been in government now at least two years and supported the Prime Minister for long before that. Since they signed the coalition agreement, rent inflation has been at its worst in Canadian history. We do not need more bureaucracy. We need my common-sense plan to clear away the red tape and the gatekeepers to build millions of new homes Canadians can afford and allow them powerful paycheques to pay for them.

199 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Nov/21/23 5:04:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition tried to excuse himself and his caucus out of the way they voted earlier with respect to the Ukraine free trade agreement. I want to tell him that nobody believes him. President Zelenskyy asked us to vote in favour of this. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked us to vote in favour of this. As a matter of fact, “international trade lawyer Larry Herman said that the Conservatives' concern about reference to a carbon pricing makes them look ‘petty and hyperpartisan.’” It is nothing more than a red herring. The reality is that MAGA Republican politics now lives and resides within the Conservative Party of Canada.

116 words

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/21/23 5:05:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hyperventilating member for Kingston and the Islands only proves my point with those falsehoods. The Conservative Party initiated the original free trade agreement with Ukraine. We backed Ukraine against Crimea. We led the charge to kick Russia out of the G8, and that is why we now have the G7. The Prime Minister has betrayed Ukraine. He signed off on an export permit for a turbine to go to Russia so Putin could pump gas and raise money to fund his war. He refused to sell natural gas from Canada, forcing Europeans to continue to fund that war; we want to defund Putin. He embarrassed the President of Ukraine by allowing a Nazi to be recognized on the floor of the House of Commons during the president's visit. Now the Prime Minister betrays Ukraine while the country has a knife at its throat. He uses it as an occasion to try to bolster his carbon tax by putting in, for the first time in the history of trade, a carbon tax in a trade agreement. Ukrainians do not need a carbon tax. Canadians do not need a carbon tax. That is why my common-sense plan will stand up to dictators such as Putin, turn dollars for dictators into paycheques for our people and axe the tax for all.

223 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Nov/21/23 5:06:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to ask the Conservative leader this question. It is a very important question. We are dealing with a government that has forgotten what common sense means for all Canadians. Can the Conservative leader tell us what common sense means to him and how a common-sense government will help Canadian families?

56 words

Common
Sense

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

Nov/21/23 5:07:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, common sense means getting rid of the carbon tax to lower the cost of living for all Canadians. Common sense means capping spending and getting rid of waste to balance the budget and lower inflation and the interest rates. Common sense means cutting taxes to make hard work pay off again. That is what common sense is all about.

61 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Nov/21/23 5:08:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to remind the House that this is an economic statement. It is not a budget. As we know, a budget sets out the government's policies and presents the legislative, fiscal and budgetary measures required to implement them. An economic statement has a more modest purpose. It is supposed to present the evolution of the economic and fiscal situation since the last budget. What this statement now tells us is that the deficit may change according to the government's forecasts, contrary to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer had calculated, which is worrisome. The statement outlines the government's response to these changes. There is not much there. For example, at the end of the summer, the Prime Minister asked the new President of the Treasury Board to cut $15 billion from various departments in order to balance the budget. They promised to give us an outline by mid-October. That did not happen. We were expecting to see it in the economic statement, but all they are doing is putting things off again without any concrete targets. Another objective has been missed. What is the purpose of an economic statement? It is used to present the measures the government plans to take to deal with the emergencies that have cropped up since the last budget. There have been quite a few emergencies since the last budget. The economy has changed a great deal. There is a lot of struggling and difficulty. The economy is not doing well. Many people are affected by that. We were really expecting the minister to address the major emergencies that have come up since the last budget. Unfortunately, this is such a missed opportunity that we might wonder what the point is in having an economic statement. I will come back to that. There are several emergencies that we could have focused on that were simply not even mentioned in this statement. I will give another example. The first chapter has to do with housing. While we are short on housing and social housing and the situation is desperate, we find out that there will be $37 million in cuts this year. For next year, not one penny more will be added to what was already presented in Bill C‑56 to get rid of the GST on social housing construction. We will have to wait two years to see the $54 million and $1 billion promised for subsequent years to tackle housing. Is that enough when we know that most of that $1 billion is money that was already announced and not spent? It is unfortunate. A few weeks ago, we presented our requests to the minister. What we asked the government to do in the economic statement was to respond to existing emergencies, the urgent situations that we are currently facing. Take, for example, homeless people. As we know, it is starting to get cold outside. This morning, the temperature was below zero. There are people who are sleeping in tents and in the streets. It is truly awful. We are asking the government to do what Quebec did in its fall economic statement and to allocate emergency funding to immediately address homelessness. We want to set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support homeless people in their area and give them the resources they need to do so. There is nothing about that in the economic statement. This is a real emergency that we are dealing with, and yet we have here a government and a minister who are ignoring the real emergencies. There was no response to that request in the economic statement. On the housing front—and I will come back to this in more detail later—we provided the minister with ideas of how to create an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations and set up an interest-free or very low-interest loan program to stimulate the construction of social and affordable rental housing. Our program could be easily implemented and rapidly deployed without costing the government a fortune. The main measure being announced here is that builders who want to develop a real estate project will be allowed, in partnership with their financial institution, to pay only the interest on the loan and will not have to repay the capital until the building is built and sold. While this would improve liquidity somewhat, it is not really something that was asked for by the groups that we heard at the Standing Committee on Finance, for instance. At the end of the day, we do not think it will contribute to building additional housing. Let us just say that the impact of this remains to be seen, and we do not see it in this statement. We know that seniors are in dire straits. With the current inflation rate and what was announced this morning, the consumer price index is not as high as what we have seen over the last few months and the last few quarters, but it is still above 3%. Low-income seniors and seniors in general are struggling, and we need to restore some measure of fairness. The government decided to increase old age security for seniors aged 75 and over. However, since then, with my friend and colleague, the member for Shefford, who is our critic for the rights of seniors, we have been saying that fairness must be restored. The increase must start at age 65. People who are struggling need this support, which will not be enough to make up for the lack of indexing to inflation or to the average wage that the program originally offered. Still, it could give seniors a little breathing room in the current inflationary environment. The repayment of CEBA loans is another urgent situation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, chambers of commerce and many organizations representing SMEs are raising the alarm with elected officials in the House and with the government. They are asking that the deadline be extended by another year. These loans were granted during the pandemic, but after the pandemic, SMEs have had to deal with rising inflation and a difficult economic recovery. Many of them are falling further into debt. Now, the government is asking them to repay their loan or they will lose the grant portion. According the the CFIB's numbers, approximately one in five SMEs could go bankrupt if the deadline is not extended. When we asked the minister about that, she said that it would cost too much. No serious studies were done to determine what it would cost the government, the economy as a whole and society if as many as one in five businesses went bankrupt as a result of this. We in the Bloc Québécois are willing to bet that pushing the loan repayment deadline back one year would be much more profitable. It would strengthen the economy in the sense that it would prevent a lot of predictable bankruptcies. A few weeks ago, the Journal de Montréal published an assessment of the risk for each region. My riding, in the north of the Lanaudière region, was particularly at risk, given the minister's refusal to extend the deadline for repayment of CEBA loans by one year. That is very disappointing. We tried and tried to negotiate with the government. We could not get access to the studies it had used to make that decision because, as we understand it, there were no such studies. In the end, the government chose to team up with its natural ally, when we could have come to an agreement in exchange for that condition, which would have greatly helped our SMEs. The government chose to turn its back on struggling SMEs. We can only conclude that the government's ally did not really care about that too much. There are other emergencies. As I said, the purpose of the economic update is to respond to existing emergencies. We can think of our media. Small, local and regional media, newspapers and radio stations are struggling. They are falling one after the other. The situation is catastrophic. Even the bigger media outlets are having a tough time. We do not even know if they are going to make it to Christmas or next summer. The situation is that dire. We saw the sad announcement of upcoming layoffs at Groupe TVA, with more than 500 employees affected. Even the biggest media outlets are struggling to overcome the crisis. We called for an emergency fund for the next few months at least, but that did not happen either. Also, in order to resolve an inequity, we called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars. That has not been done either, which is appalling. Let us talk about other extremely important points. Since 2015, this government has been promising a complete overhaul of employment insurance. Once again, it has been postponed indefinitely. A year and a half ago, we were told that it was coming in the spring of 2022. After that, they said it would be no later than that fall. Now there is no mention of it, and nothing has been done. I naively wanted to believe the Liberals' promise. Let that be a lesson to me. Nothing has been done, and now they will not even dare talk about it. Shame on me for believing a Liberal promise. When it comes to EI reform, a specific concern was also raised that once again has to do with the need to respond to emergencies. This summer, there were forest fires everywhere. That means that a lot of seasonal workers in the forestry industry were unable to accumulate enough hours to qualify for EI during the season because they could not work in the forest. We brought this to the minister's attention. This is an emergency and the government needs to be a bit flexible. The government needs to do something and to think about those workers, and yet there is nothing in the economic statement to address this emergency either. We often asked questions in the House, and I personally drew the minister's attention to an issue that my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has been working on. The government announced $1 billion for a school breakfast program for children. The money was promised during the announcement, but it has yet to be delivered so that the program can be implemented. Inflation is high, and more and more children are going to school hungry. It is time for the government to pay out the money it announced. The government could have already dealt with this emergency, but this, too, was not urgent enough for the minister. Many of my colleagues talked to me about regional infrastructure needs. Nothing more is being done. There is also the whole agriculture sector, which was hit by the flooding in some regions this summer. The produce and horticultural sectors are struggling. They are in serious trouble. Could existing programs have been adapted? The economic statement would have been the time to do that but, no, nothing was done. Once again, agriculture was not even mentioned in this statement. There is a slightly technical detail that affects many artisanal businesses throughout our regions that could really change things. As we know, the government increased the excise tax on wine after Australian wine producers sued Canadian wine producers. Regulations on the matter are problematic. In legal texts, everything that is alcohol is called “wine”. The Bloc Québécois managed to get apple cider and mead exempted from the tax. That was a big win, and these producers are grateful. Afterward we realized that if cider producers put a bit of pear in their drink, they have to pay the entirety of the tax. Producers of beverages made from maple alcohol also have to pay the entirety of the tax. As soon as there are a few small fruits in these drinks, producers have to pay the entire tax. It does not bother wine producers in Australia that we help our small artisans who produce these niche products. For two years we have been calling on the minister to settle this. I understand that she is busy, that she is dealing with many challenges, but at some point these are just formalities that need follow-up. This would only help better recognize the artisans without taking anything away from anyone, without frustrating anyone in Australia. It would be easy to do. This could have been implemented in the economic statement, but no, that was not done either and it is really disappointing and upsetting. As I was saying, the government and the minister should have developed an economic statement to respond to the emergencies. I raised a few that have been brought forward by all of my colleagues here. It is not hard. How many of the emergencies we raised did the minister respond to? A big fat zero. I am referring here to a former minister I will talk about and quote. It was a former minister of Prime Minister Trudeau, the father of the actual Prime Minister. I definitely said “actual” and not “actuary”. Speaking of actuaries, let me emphasize that the employment insurance fund surplus has doubled. Once again, workers have to pay to fill the government's coffers. Let us come back to the urban affairs department. What is it? In the economic update, the government has chosen to create a new department, which my leader dubbed the “department of interference” because it deals with housing. It is interference, pure and simple. It is similar to what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did when he created a ministry of urban affairs. Its minister was Mr. Ouellet. That is why I am drawing attention to it. This is a quote from a Library of Parliament research document: Accordingly, in March 1971, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed a Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who took on responsibility not only for CMHC but also for a new Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (MSUA). Given the inescapable constitutional limitations [of interfering with provincial jurisdiction], this ministry had no program responsibilities... Today, the government is bringing this department back. We can see where this is going. The Library of Parliament document continues as follows two paragraphs later: This...eventually led to the downfall of Trudeau's intervention in federal-municipal relations. A bit further on, it reads, and I quote: In view of the Department's lack of credibility and the government's desire to cut expenditures, the MSUA was abolished on 31 March 1979. Is that what awaits us with the creation of the new department announced in this economic update? As my colleagues have said, that is definitely what we can expect. Let us talk about some other aspects of the economic statement. Over the past few weeks, we have been seeing a squabble play out between the Liberal government and the Conservatives in the House. The Conservative Party is all about slogans and is always pointing out problems. The Conservatives made a suggestion on housing. What is it? It involves punishing the municipalities and the provinces. The Conservatives are saying that, if the municipalities do not build 15% more housing units, then the federal government should hold back infrastructure funding. For example, this year, housing starts in Quebec decreased by half. That means that, were the Conservative Party in power, it would have cut the province's infrastructure funding by half. They are real winners, as my colleague said. The Liberal government's response to this proposal is to use it themselves. In the statement, it is clear that they are using the same approach. In other words, they are threatening the provinces and, indirectly, the municipalities. The statement says that if they do not build enough housing, transfers will be cut off. My goodness, does the Liberal government want to go back to the Stone Age, too? I wonder. There is one good measure involving Airbnb. The government wants to bring it in line with municipal regulations. It is going to be difficult to enforce, but there is hope. I am not simply criticizing everything. That is a good measure. As I was saying about the $15 billion in budget cuts, it was supposed to happen in October. However, the plan hatched by the government and the President of the Treasury Board is not even mentioned in the November statement. As I was also saying, we brought up a number of urgent matters, but none of them have been resolved here. There is no plan for dealing with the emergencies. Clearly, the Liberals do not understand what an emergency is. I will say it again: Each and every one of the Bloc's demands and the urgent needs expressed by Quebeckers has been ignored. Clearly, this government, this Prime Minister and the finance minister are confusing fiscal restraint with inaction when it comes to emergencies. It is all going to cost us more in the end. Again, the purpose of an economic update is to take stock of the economic situation since the presentation of the budget and announce solutions for the emergencies we know about. This statement does not address the many changes and does not fix anything. This is such a missed opportunity that we wonder why the government even bothered. Thanks to the Liberals, things will get worse before they hopefully get better.

2960 words

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

Nov/21/23 5:28:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are things definitely worthy of note in the fall economic statement. For me, personally, I look at the issue of inflation. Canadians have been concerned about inflation. Even though inflation around the world is significantly higher than here in Canada, the Liberal government has been focused on that. From a high of just over 8% back in June 2022, today it was announced that it is at 3.1%. This shows the government is serious about dealing with the issue of inflation. The member spent a great deal of time talking about housing. The fall statement reaffirms a solid commitment and new monies towards housing co-ops. We all talk about the importance of non-profit housing. Housing co-ops are an excellent way to support growing demands on housing. It is affordable housing that is different than apartments. In a housing co-op, people are residents and co-owners, compared to an apartment. Apartments are also being beefed up with purpose-built rentals—

168 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/21/23 5:29:36 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Joliette.

5 words

Joliette

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Nov/21/23 5:29:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, inflation is affecting everyone, particularly the most vulnerable members of our society. It is really worrisome. There is nothing in the fall economic statement to counter inflation. There is nothing to deal with it. The Liberals are just whistling past the graveyard. The hon. member spoke about housing. Yes, the government should do more about housing. However, this year, it is making $37 million in cuts to housing. We see that on page 31 of the English version of the economic statement. It shows $37 million being subtracted. The member is talking about funding for co-operative housing. He does not need to explain to me or any member of the Bloc Québécois what co-operative housing is. There is plenty of it in Quebec. We believe in the co-op model. We are always telling the government to do more in the way of social housing, including co-operatives. How much money is the government putting into housing co-operatives this year, in 2023-24? Zero dollars. However, the situation is urgent. How much money is the government putting into housing co-operatives next year, in 2024-25? Again, zero dollars. The situation is urgent. The situation was urgent this summer and last spring. We need to act now. Today, the government should not be making statements and commitments in principle about what it is going to do two, three, four, five or six years down the road. The situation is urgent now. This government is truly out of touch with people's urgent needs.

265 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/21/23 5:31:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP shares my colleague's disappointment about the Canada emergency business account. That was our position, and in letters and in conversations with the government, we repeatedly asked it to extend the deadline for repayment of the emergency account. What I do not understand is how the federal government can expect to receive more money by forcing companies to repay their loans when they are not currently in a position to do so. We know this will cause bankruptcies. Would my colleague care to comment on that?

90 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Nov/21/23 5:31:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-56

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance. We just spent the last week touring western Canada. We visited every region to hear from people. All the organizations, the chambers of commerce, the organizations representing SMEs are asking for the deadline to be extended by one year. It is the same in Quebec. We hear it everywhere. When we speak with the ministers individually, most of them agree with this call. Most of them do not understand the Minister of Finance's reaction. That is what is throwing a wrench in the works. The Minister of Finance and senior civil servants are saying that it is going to be expensive. We have been leading the charge for quite some time. We just want to be the voice of the SMEs we represent. We were ready to negotiate with the government. For example, if the government wants Bill C‑56 to pass, in exchange, we would like the government to extend the deadline by a year. With all due respect, we wish the NDP had followed our lead. I hope they keep this example in mind so that, in future negotiations, they can ask for this in exchange. It would be a big win for SMEs. It would mean 20% fewer bankruptcies, according to figures from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It would make a big difference.

232 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Nov/21/23 5:33:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking my Bloc colleagues for their work on behalf of small and medium-sized businesses. It is so important for all MPs to stand up for SMEs, so, again, I thank them. My question is about the fact that Parliament passed the Canada disability benefit almost six months ago. Yet again, there is nothing in this economic statement for people with disabilities across the country, including in Quebec, who continue to live in legislated poverty. Are the member for Joliette and the rest of the Bloc caucus as disappointed as I am about this omission?

101 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Nov/21/23 5:34:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that excellent question and his kind words. It is always a pleasure to see that we can collaborate in the House. The purpose of an economic statement is to respond to emergencies. The hon. member, whom I congratulate on his excellent French, just raised an urgent matter. This measure was adopted six months ago and needs to be implemented. People living with a disability, especially in the inflationary context we are experiencing, need to receive the help that was promised. This has to be done and the economic statement was the place to implement this measure. The statement is there to respond to emergencies and this is another emergency that has been raised. The government had the opportunity to do this, but it did not take it. The government is disconnected from the public and does not respond to any emergency. The hon. member just raised another good example.

156 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Nov/21/23 5:35:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, approximately 220,000 businesses are having cash flow problems that are preventing them from repaying the emergency loan. What I understood was that the government was unable to put a figure on the additional amount this would add to the budget. Personally, like many of my colleagues here, I believe that money paid to businesses that are struggling to survive is an investment. I would like my colleague to comment on the calculations that seem to have been done, or not done, regarding the fact that if people are given extra time to repay their loans, there will be fewer bankruptcies and therefore more repayments. It may not even be an expense. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

123 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Nov/21/23 5:35:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my House leader for making this point again. This is basic economics. Are there any economists in the Liberal Party? Do they understand these notions? The government often gives the impression of nickel-and-diming, but by trying to save the grant part of the loan, it could cause so many bankruptcies and have such a wide-ranging impact that it could end up being more detrimental to society and the government's finances. When we discuss this informally with ministers, most of them agree with us. The problem is with the Minister of Finance. In that regard, I want to highlight the great work by my colleague from Terrebonne, who wrote the finance minister to make her aware of this. She also reminded her that the Quebec National Assembly unanimously demanded a one-year extension of the loan repayment deadline on September 26, well before this November economic statement that the minister just presented. Why are elected officials of all stripes in Quebec City asking for this? It is because they are just that little bit more connected to their community. They talk to their SMEs, they meet with them and they are worried about them. Like us, they are able to do the math and come to the conclusion that, even if the aim is to save a little money, there is a risk of losing a lot more in the end. Moreover, it will destabilize the economy. Really, the economic statement was the place for this kind of announcement. This is another missed opportunity, another disappointment. It is more proof that this government has grown out of touch, very out of touch, with the people and with SMEs.

285 words