SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

May/21/24 8:32:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, once again, I appreciate the questions from my Bloc Québécois colleague. I want to respond to her comment about the federal government interfering in provincial jurisdictions. I was a municipal councillor well before I came here. The reason why we announced housing measures for the entire country is that the cities and provinces were unable to meet the needs of their own populations. My colleague talked about social investments. No other budget has provided for as many social investments as budget 2024. Over $3.87 million will be invested in housing by 2031. We want Canadians and Quebeckers to have a roof over their heads. That is why we are continuing to invest. I encourage my colleague to support this budget, which will ensure that Quebeckers also have a roof over their heads and a place to call home.

146 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/21/24 8:33:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I work with my colleague quite closely on the global co-operation caucus, and I know how much she cares about people in Canada and around the world. As an Albertan, I know that inflation in Alberta is among the highest in the country and people living with disabilities are really struggling. We have heard words from the government that it wants to support people living with disabilities, but when we saw what was actually brought forward, what a disappointment that was, what a betrayal that was. The idea that Canadians living with a disability are not able to live with dignity in our communities is heartbreaking. All of us should be very concerned when the Government of Canada is not supporting the most vulnerable within our communities. I wonder if the member has some comments on the failure of this budget to meet the moment, to meet the needs of people living with disabilities.

157 words

Ms. Arielle Kayabaga

May/21/24 8:34:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoy working with my NDP colleague on many subjects that connect us. On the subject of disability, it is important to note that, number one, we are investing in housing for all Canadians. Earlier last year, I put forward a motion that was passed and that I think my colleague voted for, which was to support the national housing strategy having a council that would include people with disabilities. That is a first step to making sure that we are including people with disabilities in the conversation around housing and around their needs. We are also launching the new Canada disability benefit. It is a beginning. We have heard from communities. We consulted them and we continue to talk. With all the measures in this budget, they can also find a lot of support. This is a beginning to do more, and we will continue to work together to make sure that we are responding to the most pressing needs of the many Canadians who live with disabilities and have family members who live with disabilities.

180 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

May/21/24 8:35:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off by saying it had been predicted that this year's NDP-Liberal budget was likely to be the worst budget since 1982 when the Prime Minister's father was running the government. That prediction was made by the former Liberal-appointed Bank of Canada Governor, David Dodge. Mr. Dodge was speaking about the budget before he even saw it, but what he already observed was $40 billion in announced new spending. Someone does not have to be a former Bank of Canada governor to realize that doubling down on a failed approach is a bad idea. The proof is out there in the lived experience of real people across our country. Canadians deserve better. In my speech today, I will highlight a number of reasons the Liberals have failed to respond to the needs of everyday Canadians, including the good people of Westman. First, the NDP-Liberal budget fails on tax relief for struggling Canadians. At a time when life is costing far more for Westman residents, the Prime Minister's budget does nothing to bring the relief families desperately need. As the cost of gas, groceries and home heating continue to increase, the Liberals have deliberately chosen not only to leave the carbon tax in place, but also to increase it even more, despite the financial hurt Canadians are feeling. Thanks to the NDP-Liberal coalition, the Prime Minister was able to hike the carbon tax by 23% on April 1, further driving up the cost of everything. The fact is that 70% of Canadians oppose this tax hike, and 70% of the provincial premiers have asked the Prime Minister to stop this painful tax increase. The simplest, fairest thing to do is to axe the carbon tax for everyone, everywhere, for good. That is what Conservatives are working toward. Instead of siding with Canadians facing an affordability crisis, it was very frustrating to see the NDP and Liberals join forces to save the Prime Minister from a carbon tax election last month. In fact, the parties have voted together 22 times to keep this tax grab in place since 2019. Those who are watching can rest assured that common-sense Conservatives will continue fighting to axe the tax and bring home lower prices for everyone. Second, the NDP-Liberal budget fails on measures to restore affordability. Under the Liberal government's watch, the cost of rent, mortgage payments and down payments has doubled. The Liberals' record deficits have driven interest rates sky-high. Food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with a million more people expected in 2024. In my riding, the Samaritan House food bank gave out nearly 36,000 hampers last year, a dramatic increase of 12,000, which was a 50% increase above its normal annual average. This is in line with trends across the whole country as families struggle to make ends meet and put food on the table. As the Prime Minister and his ideological environment minister keep taxing the farmers who grow the food and the truckers who transport the food, at the end of the day, they are adding to the cost of food for everyday Canadians who buy it. That is why one thing the Liberals could have done to bring tax relief is axe the carbon tax. Third, the Liberals could have moved to stop inflationary spending. The finance minister green-lighted a deficit of $39.8 billion, which would bring Canada's national debt to a staggering $1.25 trillion. It has been proven time and time again that it is these exact deficits that are driving inflation in Canada and making life more unaffordable for Canadians across our whole country. The ever-increasing rates of spending in Canada are causing the Bank of Canada to maintain or even raise the interest rate, which is now at 5% versus the 1% of two years ago. These were the worst two years for millions of families who trusted the Liberal Prime Minister when he claimed that interest rates would stay low forever. That is why Conservatives demanded that budget 2024 include a commitment to cap spending, with a dollar-for-dollar rule, to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar in savings for every dollar of spending, so Canadians no longer see the value of their dollar drop thanks to rising inflation. The Prime Minister's reckless spending is leaving less money available for health care. This year, Canada will spend a shocking $54.1 billion on interest servicing our national debt, more money than the entire Canada health transfer. Should the NDP-backed Liberal government continue on its spending spree, it would simply mean more money for wealthy bankers and bondholders who own our debt, while less money flows to the doctors and nurses who keep our communities healthy. If we continue to go down this road, the pot of cash that is available for health care in Canada will only continue to get smaller, endangering our rural and remote hospitals, clinics and care homes. Another failing is the government's approach to housing. In its 2015 platform, the Liberals said they would “conduct an inventory of all available federal lands and buildings that could be repurposed, and make some of these lands available at low cost for affordable housing in communities where there is a pressing need.” That did not happen. Now its 2024 budget is restating that commitment nine years later. Under the Liberal government, Canada is building fewer homes than we did in the mid-1970s when we had half the population, making housing more expensive for everyone. Reannouncing old pledges will not help to build the 5.8 million homes that are needed to restore housing affordability for Canadians. Even in Brandon, the rent of a modest unit has risen from $989 to $1,242, an increase of more than $250 a month, not to mention the rising cost of everything else. A common-sense Conservative approach would build homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring that cities permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money. This budget “falls short for Canadian farmers.” That is a statement we heard from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Despite a specific Conservative demand to axe the carbon tax on farmers and food by passing Bill C-234 in its original form, no such commitment has been made by the Liberals. Instead of saving farmers $1 billion between now and 2030, which is exactly what passing Bill C-234 in its original form would do, the Liberals continued to ignore farmers. The result is that all Canadians will continue to pay more at the grocery store because higher expenses for farmers lead to higher prices for consumers. Conservatives will keep fighting to bring home lower food prices for all Canadians. Another failing of the Liberal budget is our growing national debt. The Prime Minister has doubled down on $40 billion of new spending, $2,400 in new government debt and new inflationary spending alone for every Canadian. Not only have the deficit and debt grown at substantial rates, but the interest payments due on the debt continue to grow at skyrocketing rates. In fact, all of the GST Canadians pay this year will be needed to pay for the Liberal government's interest payments on the debt. For the first time in a generation, we are spending more on debt interest than on health care. I would ask every Canadian watching to remember this. Every time they pay at the cash or close a business transaction, the extra 5% they pay in goods and services tax is all going toward interest on the Prime Minister's debt. After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada is now spending more money paying off interest on his debt than on Canada health transfer to provinces. Meanwhile, housing prices have doubled and food banks are overwhelmed. The decline in the Canadian economy since 2019 created by the Liberal Prime Minister means Canadians are now poorer by $4,200 per person. While American GDP per capita growth has grown by 7% since 2019, Canada's has fallen by 2.8%. This is the single-largest underperformance of the Canadian economy in comparison to the United States since 1965. It is long past the time to bring home affordability and restore common sense. Unfortunately, I could not support budget 2024 as it failed on both accounts.

1431 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/21/24 8:45:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I find disappointing about the budget is the lack of support for seniors in our communities. I have spent many days speaking to seniors. Recently, during one of our constituency weeks, I met with seniors in 15 different residences to talk about the concerns that they have. My issue is that I do not know how seniors in Alberta could trust the Conservatives, knowing the record that they have, knowing that Stephen Harper was the person who put in place cuts to support for OAS, such as making sure a senior is 67 instead of 65 before they apply for OAS, as well as knowing that the leader of the Conservative Party has very clearly, historically, been against the Canada pension plan. I wonder if this member could comment on the support that a Conservative government would give to seniors because, historically, Conservatives have been extraordinarily bad for seniors in this country.

159 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/21/24 8:46:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that question was a little misleading. I know that Mr. Harper increased the GIS for seniors by 25% during his term in power. I just want to say that the person who just spoke continues to support the coalition with the Liberal government that has caused all the inflationary spending in the first place. That leaves us, as I said, in one of the worst precarious financial positions the country has ever been in, which is not good for seniors. I spoke to many seniors on the last break week that we had, back in my constituency. They are very concerned about the increased price of gas, home heating fuel, the carbon tax and inflationary issues as well. They are also concerned about the billions and billions of dollars that have caused us to have a $1.25-trillion debt now. They know that the amount that they're paying for food at the grocery stores is certainly inflationary.

161 words

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

May/21/24 8:47:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about carbon tax. Can he explain to the House the difference between this carbon tax that we have in place now versus the one that he ran on in 2021?

37 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/21/24 8:48:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know, today, that the government has caused the inflationary situation that they are in. They know that the government is forcing 53% of Canadians to be within $200 of insolvency at the end of every paycheque. There is a big difference between balancing the books, like Mr. Harper did in 2015. Mr. Harper did not take money out of employment insurance, like the Liberals did before his time. If the member wants to get into tit-for-tat stuff, the Liberals are not dealing with the reality of today, and this is when Canadians have to pay the bills that the Liberals have cost them.

108 words

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

May/21/24 8:48:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. He talked about huge expenditures, massive spending, and rightly so. He also talked about inflation and how it is getting harder and harder for some people to get by, while others are lining their pockets. I may have missed it at one point or another, but I did not hear him talk about the gifts this budget gives to oil companies. I guess it is because he ran out of time. He had a lot to say. I wanted to give him the opportunity to speak out against that, as he just did regarding other parts of this budget.

107 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/21/24 8:49:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, earlier today my colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets indicated that the oil industry in Canada today is paying about $22 billion in taxes in the Canadian economy. I know that the oil industry shares opportunities for our natural resources. I was on the natural resources committee for a while. I appreciate my colleague from the Bloc for his question. We are limiting the amount of export opportunities that we have, which brings revenue into the government in this country to pay for the social programs that we have already had in health care and education. The government is neglecting those.

104 words

Mr. Parm Bains (Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.)

May/21/24 8:50:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in the House and to contribute to the debate today on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act for budget 2024, which is focused on ensuring fairness for every generation. It is another building block to help future generations and is based on supporting the promise that all Canadians should have a fair chance to build a good, middle-class life and to do as well as their parents, if not better. Today, too many young Canadians feel as though the deck is stacked against them, and the reward of secure, prosperous, comfortable middle-class life remains out of reach. Budget 2024 presents our plan to fix that. We will build a Canada that works better for everyone, no matter where or when they were born, and we are going to do that by building more affordable homes. We will make life cost less, and we will grow the economy in a way that is shared by all because our country works best when our economy is growing and when more opportunities exist for every generation. Today, I would like to talk about the housing pillar of budget 2024 and the elements of Bill C-69 that support the effort to make homes more affordable to more Canadians. For generations, one of the fundamental, foundational promises of Canada's middle-class dream was that if one worked hard and saved money, one could afford a home. However, for today's young adults, this promise is under threat. Rising rents are making it hard to find an affordable place to call home, and rising home prices are keeping homes out of reach for many first-time buyers, especially in my home province of British Columbia, and in Richmond, B.C. On April 12, the government released our ambitious housing plan, “solving the housing crisis: Canada's housing plan”, which is supported by new investments from the budget. Budget 2024 and Canada's housing plan lay out the government's bold strategy to unlock 3.87 million new homes by 2031, which includes a minimum of two million net new homes beyond what was already expected to be built. The plan will enable more apartments and affordable housing to be built across the country, while protecting the stock of affordable housing and protecting renters from unfair practices. When it comes to Bill C-69, the federal government is taking action to help Canadians buy and stay in their homes while also curbing investor activity that drives up the cost and decreases the availability of housing. Homes are for Canadians to live in, not speculative assets for investors, so we would crack down on non-compliant short-term rentals. The operation of non-compliant short-term rentals is helping to keep too many homes off the market. The 2023 fall economic statement proposed tax changes to incentivize the return of non-compliant short-term rentals to the long-term market and to support the work of provinces and territories that have restricted short-term rentals. Bill C-69 proposes those amendments to the Income Tax Act, which would deny income tax deductions for short-term rentals operated in provinces and municipalities that have prohibited such activities or where short-term rentals operators are not compliant with the applicable provincial or municipal orders. This measure would induce owners of short-term rentals to return their properties to the long-term market and would unlock more housing supply for Canadians to live in. The extension of the foreign buyer ban on Canadian housing now is to address increasing affordability concerns in cities across the country due to foreign money coming into Canada to buy up residential real estate. The government introduced a two-year ban on the purchase of residential property by foreign investors, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, to help further curb speculative foreign investments that reduce the supply of homes for Canadians to live in. The government announced that it intends to extend the ban on foreign buying of Canadian homes by an additional two years. As confirmed in budget 2024, Bill C-69 proposes to amend legislation to extend the restrictions on foreign investment in Canadian housing, established under the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act, to January 1, 2027. Foreign commercial enterprises and people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents would continue to be prohibited from purchasing residential property in Canada. Regarding the issue of underused housing tax refinements, as part of the 2023 fall economic statement, the government proposed several changes to the underused housing tax, or the UHT. Canadians and other stakeholders were invited to share their views on these proposals, and the amendments included in Bill C-69 take into account the feedback received. These changes would do the following: eliminate the UHT filing requirement for entities that are substantially or entirely Canadian; reduce the minimum non-filing penalties from $5,000 to $1,000 for individuals, and from $10,000 to $2,000 for corporations; introduce a new employee-accommodation exemption that would be available in areas of Canada that are rural or otherwise not densely populated; and, finally, make several technical changes to ensure that UHT applies in accordance with the policy intent. These proposed amendments aim to facilitate compliance while ensuring that the tax continues to apply as intended, and that is to discourage having non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential property sitting vacant and off the market. When it comes to enhancing the home buyers' plan to help Canadians buy their first home while at the same time we increase supply, the federal government is also enhancing the tax-free savings plans that help young prospective buyers save for a down payment. Support to help first-time buyers save must keep pace with market prices. That is why the government launched the tax-free first home savings account in 2023. To great success, more than 750,000 Canadians have already opened an account to save for their first down payment. That is also why, through budget 2024, we propose to enhance the home buyers' plan. To effect that enhancement, Bill C-69 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000, enabling first-time homebuyers to use the tax benefits of an RRSP to save up to $25,000 more for their down payment or, if they are in a partnership, $50,000 and almost $120,000 toward their first down payment. The newly increased limit would be effective since the budget was tabled on April 16. Bill C-69 also proposes to temporarily extend the grace period, during which homeowners are not required to repay their home buyers' plan withdrawals to their RRSP by an additional three years. Of the two million net new homes I mentioned earlier, we estimate that the recent policy actions taken in Canada's housing plan in budget 2024 and in fall 2023 would support a minimum of 1.2 million net new homes. Budget 2024 investments for increasing the supply of affordable homes are necessary and timely, and they are part of the investments we are making for the prosperity of every generation. We will build more homes. We will make life cost less. We will invest in our small businesses. We will grow our economy in a way that works for everyone, and I encourage all hon. members to support this bill.

1259 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

May/21/24 8:59:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague acknowledge that the Communist dictatorship in Beijing interfered to get him and the Prime Minister elected in 2021, as has been shown by various studies and reports, including Justice Hogue's inquiry?

38 words

Mr. Parm Bains

May/21/24 9:00:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Justice Hogue's report was very clear that there was no certainty with respect to the election interference. I encourage the member opposite to read the report thoroughly before they make misleading accusations and try to do a character assassination on any member in the House.

48 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/21/24 9:00:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tell us that they are very green and very environmentally minded. We have looked at the budget and analyzed it carefully because we are thorough. If something is good for Quebec, then we will vote for it. If it is bad for Quebec, then we will vote against it, of course. There is no partisanship in that. It is based purely on facts. The Liberals tell us that there are no more subsidies for the oil industry. However, in the budget, we see $30.3 billion in subsidies for oil companies in the form of tax credits. I hear my Liberal colleagues talk about future generations. Not only is the government using taxpayer dollars to fund the most polluting industry in the world, but it is taking that money away from those same young people, that same young generation and that next generation, who will have to deal with climate change. What explanation could there be for such a measure to appear in this budget? The government is giving $30.3 billion to an industry that is likely the wealthiest and most profitable industry in the world, and it is getting that money from taxpayers. How can it justify such a measure?

208 words

Mr. Parm Bains

May/21/24 9:02:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, on this side of the House, we have worked very hard and aggressively to combat climate change, and we will continue to do so for future generations. Not only that, but also I was talking more precisely about housing and how we are going to be combatting the issues around affordability on housing. I can only speak for my riding specifically. We have already broken ground on the rapid housing initiative on Steveston Highway and Railway Avenue in Richmond, British Columbia, where we will be building 25 units for those who need it the most: women and women with children. It is something we are really happy to introduce. We have broken ground on that, and I am looking forward to it being done in record time.

133 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/21/24 9:03:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing my colleague and neighbour from the lower mainland of B.C.. I do have a question for him that is serious. We have seen how badly Conservatives managed money when they were in power, with the giveaways to banks, the massive giveaways to CEOs for the oil and gas sector and the infamous Harper tax haven treaties that have sucked the lifeblood out of this country. It is $30 billion each and every year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who should know, having evaluated the impacts of this dismal list of Harper treaties that have really sucked this country dry and that have led to, of course, all the cuts to services as well. My colleague, though, should be able to comment on why the Liberals have done much the same thing. They have not ended the tax haven treaties. They continue to give money, splurge, to oil and gas CEOs, and they provided even more money to the banks in liquidity supports than the Harper government did. Why do liberals take the worst practices of the Harper regime, rather than the best practices of financial management? Of course, as we are aware, those come from the party that is best at managing money and paying down debt, and that is the NDP.

220 words

Mr. Parm Bains

May/21/24 9:04:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to answer questions from the member opposite from British Columbia. When it comes to our banking system and taxation, the member opposite very well knows that we have made adequate and competitive choices when it comes to tax fairness. I encourage working closely with him on these issues.

54 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/21/24 9:05:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would rise in the House one day to say that the Prime Minister and I finally agree on a constitutional issue. A careful reading of this budget makes it clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are no longer federalists. Like the Bloc Québécois, they now oppose the idea of dividing responsibilities between the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and those of the House of Commons. Let us take a closer look at the definition of federalism. According to the late Benoît Pelletier, the hallmark of a federation is that federal institutions have sovereignty in their areas of jurisdiction, while the provinces have sovereignty in their own areas of jurisdiction. We in the Bloc Québécois do not subscribe to Canadian federalism, but since our party was created, we have always fought to protect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction until Quebec becomes independent. How could anyone conclude that the Liberals still believe in Canadian federalism after seeing the dozens of encroachments on Quebec's jurisdictions featured in this budget? That means that most members in this House do not believe in Canadian federalism. That is great news. However, rest assured that is where the similarities end. The Liberal Party is running a country that is unable to provide passports within a reasonable period of time, unable to make sure its public servants get paid and even unable to properly equip an invaded ally without neutralizing its own army's capabilities. This same party is now claiming that it wants to show the provinces and Quebec how to manage their health care systems, for instance. The Liberals have interfered so much that they have run out of areas to infringe upon. If the Prime Minister loses a a few more points in the polls, will he suggest changing the code of conduct for child care centres or will he interfere in how Hydro-Québec operates? Oh, wait. He has already done that. Believe it or not, when the Bloc Québécois comes up with its pre-budget requests, we do our homework and we request things that actually fall under federal jurisdiction. Here is what we asked for. We asked for the federal government to give Quebec the unconditional right to opt out with full compensation from any new federal program in areas under the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. Obviously, that is not in the budget. We also asked for the federal government to increase old age security starting at age 65, which is what my esteemed colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 seeks to do. Obviously, that is not in the budget either. We also asked the government to put an immediate end to all fossil fuel subsidies, including tax measures, and to support clean, renewable energy instead. Everyone knows that tax credits are a pretty deceptive way of subsidizing an industry that is already very rich and that is making billions in profits on the backs of taxpayers. It is actually very difficult to figure out exactly how much those tax credits are worth. Obviously, this budget does not end fossil fuel subsidies. We had another request as well. We asked the government to pay Quebec what it owes for asylum seekers. That is certainly not in the budget. Quebec is still asking for the $900 million it spent welcoming asylum seekers after the feds opened the borders. Quebec welcomed them and worked hard to integrate them, but we are still waiting to be reimbursed. Lastly, Quebec asked the government to transfer the housing budget. The federal government is unfortunately taking over in the housing crisis. Instead of transferring the money to Quebec and the provinces, the federal government is now imposing conditions, not only on Quebec and the provinces, but also on municipalities. For example, it wants to impose conditions related to density around college and university campuses. That is direct interference in municipalities' jurisdiction over city planning. That is next-level jurisdictional encroachment. Let me recap what is in this budget, because none of the Bloc Québécois's requests are there. On April 16, the Government of Canada tabled its budget. First, it mentions a negative budgetary balance of $40 billion for 2023-24, $39.8 billion for 2024-25 and $38.9 billion for 2025-26, which is not that far off. The trend continues before reaching a projected deficit of $20 billion in 2028-29. The government is therefore choosing to rack up debt for itself, for Canadians and for Quebeckers in the years to come, of course, with no plan to balance the budget, which is alarming. The government is therefore deciding to tax the public more, as with the increased capital gains tax. However, it is taking on as much debt as ever. I laid out the figures. Our debt remains the same. The government is going to get a little more money, but it is going to keep taking on more debt.

855 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/21/24 9:09:59 p.m.
Watch

I would like to point out that the hon. member for Terrebonne has the floor, and I hope that those who are taking part in conversations will keep their voices very low.

32 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

May/21/24 9:10:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it seems we are witnessing an NDP-Liberal coalition meeting here in the House. Basically, the government just keeps spending. Is it spending more? Not really, it is mostly just wasting more. Over the past few months, we have seen examples of the government spending too much and spending poorly. One obvious example is the money allocated for first nations housing. The government announces significant investments year after year, but it is unable to ensure that this money has any real impact. In fact, a recent Auditor General's report demonstrated that zero improvements have been made in on-reserve housing since the government took office. Billions of dollars have been sunk into it and there have not been enough results. Another fine example is, of course, the ArriveCAN app, which I have spoken to several times in the House. It was supposed to cost $80,000, but it ended up costing the government, and therefore taxpayers, at least $60 million. What we learned from ArriveCAN is that there is a much larger and more widespread problem within the current government. Under the Liberals, the public service has grown enormously, more and more contracts have been awarded to consultants, and a growing proportion of those same contracts are being awarded on a non-competitive basis. Let us not forget that many of these contracts could have been carried out in-house, by our public servants. It is quite clear that Canadians and Quebeckers are not getting the best value for their money. There has been talk about encroachment into Quebec's jurisdictions. There has been talk about the deficit. There has been talk about the mismanagement of services that fall under federal jurisdiction, but nothing has been said about why. Why is the government proposing such a disastrous budget? I will give a hint. The majority of the money promised is planned for 2026-27 and the years thereafter, well past the date of the next federal election. Just as an example, 97% of the $1.1 billion allocated to accelerating the construction of apartments is budgeted for after the election, as is 91% of the $1.5 billion allocated for the new housing infrastructure fund. The same goes for the 88% of the money promised for pharmacare, 88% of the funding to support research and 87.5% of the funding to strengthen Canada's advantage in artificial intelligence. This budget is at best an election promise and at worst a strategy to stay in power by convincing the NDP to support the government. In its desperation, the government wants to interfere everywhere, yet people in government are unable to do the work themselves. I already gave a few examples. They are taking away responsibilities from the provinces and managing them ineffectively and at a much higher cost. As an economist, I would describe any budget that tries to create a slew of new services, while disregarding the government's primary responsibilities, as irresponsible. If the Liberal Party is so desperate that it is looking for ideas for the next election, I would like to offer it a campaign slogan: “Spend and borrow for a mismanaged tomorrow”. This government thinks that, by disregarding Quebeckers' right to manage their own responsibilities and those of their nation, it can buy itself a brief reprieve, but only by taking on debt. According to an old French proverb that Quebeckers have not forgotten, no debt is ever repaid faster than a debt of contempt. As it happens, Quebeckers have long memories.

594 words