SoVote

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

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

May/21/24 10:06:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting that the member asked what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine. He should go and have look, because CNN did an interview with the Kraft CEO specifically, who said, “We’ve already increased the prices that we were expecting this year, but I'm predicting that next year, inflation will continue, and as a consequence [we] will have other rounds of price increases”. The article goes on to say, “Beyond the double-barrel challenges of shortages of raw materials and inflation, issues like...the war in Ukraine...are adding to the uncertainty”, so the member does not need to take my word for it. The member asked what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine. He can listen to the CEO from Kraft, who made those comments that I read out, who explicitly said shortages coming out of Ukraine are contributing to inflation.

156 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

May/21/24 10:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is just another example of the Liberals failing to take responsibility for the inflation that has happened in this country. We have had serious record inflation, the highest rates we have had in 40 years. This has hurt the pocketbooks of all Canadians. It has reduced their buying power. It has made everything more expensive, including Kraft Dinner and everything else. The carbon tax has a lot to do with that. Inflationary spending has caused the rate of inflation to go up and has caused those expenses to get higher. Canadians are feeling the pinch.

98 words

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

May/21/24 10:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We work very well together at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I really enjoy working with him. He is very thorough. The Conservatives say they are going to form the next government. We, as well as the Conservatives, are going to vote against this budget; there is no doubt about that. Now, what would the Conservatives do if they were sitting where the Liberals are? That is never quite as clear. Since my colleague sits on the immigration committee with me, I will ask him a question. There is one item that is missing from the budget, and I would like to know whether the Conservatives would proceed differently from the Liberals when it comes to the billion dollars that the Quebec government is requesting for taking in asylum seekers. The Liberals refuse to pay that money to the Quebec government. Quebec's National Assembly is calling on the federal government to reimburse the $1‑billion cost of taking in asylum seekers. If my colleague's party were in power, would Quebec be reimbursed that $1 billion?

193 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

May/21/24 10:09:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I do enjoy our time at the immigration committee. What would Conservatives do if we were in government? Well, first of all, we would not have all the messes we have now that are leading to situations like what my colleague described. The most important thing I want to reiterate about what we would do is that, first of all, we would get rid of the carbon tax. That is the first thing we would do. The second thing we would do would be to balance the budget because that is causing inflationary pressure. The third thing we would do would be to build more homes by requiring cities to permit 15% more houses each year in order to get federal infrastructure funds. The fourth thing we would do would be to stop the crime by making sure that repeat offenders end up in jail and that we have proper treatment facilities for those who need it in the country.

169 words

Immigration

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/21/24 10:10:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saskatoon West talked about the so-called Conservative housing plan, but I have not seen anything in that housing plan that speaks to the kind of communities that I represent, which are rural communities with small populations. The challenges in rural communities are categorically different from those in urban centres. The Conservative plan mentions forcing density around transit hubs. Small rural communities do not have transit hubs. They talk about requiring communities to build 15% more new homes every year. In many small communities, the housing demand does not allow for that kind of growth, yet small communities deserve housing just like any other community in this country. I am wondering why the Conservative plan so wholly ignores the housing needs of rural communities.

129 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

May/21/24 10:11:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I just want to say that I was a home builder in a small community, so I understand that very well. I have really good news for the member. There is an easy way to find this out. All of our detailed plans will come up during an election. That member and his party have the ability to force an election on this very budget. If they choose to not support the Liberal government and this Liberal budget, and instead vote against it, we could have an election. All of the detailed plans that he is looking for will be there for him to see.

110 words

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

May/21/24 10:11:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to start off by saying that the NDP will be supporting the budget because of the many provisions that the NDP has forced into the budget. These things are not negligible. They would help to deal with the here and now. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. This is 50% because of the Liberal government's continuing the terrible practices of the former Harper regime; in addition, about 50% of the blame has to be shared by Conservative MPs, who have never admitted to the incredible way that they ran roughshod over the rights of Canadians, gutting services and giving massive handouts to the billionaires in this country. Therefore, 50% of the blame is shared on both sides of the House, by Conservatives and Liberals. The NDP has gotten to work. The member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus all make a real difference in the House of Commons. We have really extraordinary members of Parliament, such as the member for Edmonton Strathcona and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley; they are two of the very best members of Parliament. However, the entire NDP caucus is very proud of the work we do, and Canadians are seeing the results of that. Dental care has been an extraordinary success that Conservatives should be thanking the NDP for. In the first two weeks of the new dental care program, 60,000 seniors were able to get dental care, dental surgery and dental supports. For many of them, it was for the first time in their lives. There are 60,000 people. Members can do the numbers. That is hundreds of constituents in each and every Conservative riding, Liberal riding and NDP riding. However, Conservatives have not once stood up to say, “Gosh, we should have been more effective as official opposition, and we thank the NDP for providing these services to our constituents.” Two million seniors have signed up so far. Tens of thousands are signing up each additional week. We know that, by the end of this month, those seniors aged 65 to 70 will be able to sign up for the program and are signing up now. We know that, next month, people with disabilities and families with children under 18 years of age will be able to sign up. This is all a result of the work of the member for Burnaby South, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the entire NDP caucus, which makes a difference each and every day. However, we do not stop there, of course. There is pharmacare now for six million people with diabetes, some of whom are paying $1,000 or $1,500 a month for their diabetes medication and devices. An example is my constituent, Amber. She is paying $1,000 a month for diabetes medication. By the time the pharmacare program is rolled out in the course of the next few months, she will finally be able to breathe; she will not have to find $1,000 each and every month in order to pay for a diabetes medication that keeps her in stable health. Now, the reality is that, in every Conservative riding, 17,000 to 18,000 constituents would be helped by this. The constituents of each Conservative MP should be telling their MP to vote yes for the pharmacare provisions, and not only for that which affects diabetes but also for contraception. On average, 25,000 constituents of each Conservative MP would be benefiting from contraception; however, again, the member for Carleton has tried to block these types of supports, which would make a huge difference in the lives of the constituents of Conservative MPs. They are not doing the work. The NDP is doing the work for them, but the least they can do is stop blocking it so their constituents could actually benefit from what the NDP has done for all Canadians. We also see in this budget a furthering of the work of the member for Burnaby South, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the entire NDP caucus. What does that mean? Well, it means such things as ensuring that there is a growth guarantee around the Canada health transfer. I will come back to that in a moment, because this was a particularly egregious decision made by the Harper government to slash health care, destroying health care in this country. The fact that we now have, in this budget, a growth guarantee to ensure that health spending grows as expenses do is actually an important step forward. With the national school food program, we are talking about nearly half a million kids who would benefit from getting food at school. Conservatives are saying, no, they want to block that provision. They do not want kids to eat healthily. That makes no sense at all. Again, we are not even asking Conservative MPs to do any work. We are just asking them to please stop blocking the school lunch program, so kids in their ridings can actually benefit from school lunches. In rural areas of this country, we have a shortage of pharmacists, dentists and dental hygienists, teachers and social workers. We have seen those shortages. Expanding the Canada student loan forgiveness program so that we can have more people in rural areas and northern areas of this country with those skills and professions is vitally important. Again, Conservatives are blocking that program. I wanted to then turn my attention to the issue of tax provisions. This is going to be an important part of the second half of my speech. The reality of actually ensuring that Canada's big corporations start paying their fair share includes implementing a 15% global minimum tax to ensure that large multinational corporations pay their fair share wherever they do business. Tax provisions are important. Capital gains provisions are important, as we saw under the Harper government, during the terrible Harper regime, with its infamous tax haven treaties. The PBO did an analysis just after the Harper government was thrown out. The most profitable corporations and our very wealthiest citizens bled $30 billion a year out of this country. As a result of those infamous Harper tax haven treaties, over $30 billion a year was shipped overseas where those corporations and citizens never had to pay a cent of tax. What was the result of that? Under the Harper regime, there was a slashing of services. Veterans Affairs was slashed. The veterans who laid their lives on the line for their country were treated with such disdain and disrespect by the Harper regime. Basically, their services were gutted. We saw a whole range of unbelievable cuts to other services, such as for seniors. Seniors were being disrespected. The Harper regime forced seniors to work years longer before they could collect a pension. There were cuts in services from environmental services to food inspection. The Harper regime was a terrible calamity for this country. It was the worst government in Canadian history; of that there is no doubt. There were scandals and financial mismanagement, along with a terrible approach by the Harper regime. What I reproach the Liberal government for, despite the fact that there has been some progress in the budget, which we will be supporting as a result, is its maintenance of many of the terrible practices of the Harper regime. Many of those practices are still intact. We are still losing $30 billion each and every year, as a result of the infamous Harper tax haven treaties. Colleagues can do the math. That is a third of a trillion dollars that we have lost over the course of a little more than a decade as a result of Conservative mismanagement, scandals and corruption. However, colleagues should not stop there. Again, Liberal practices and Conservative practices are so similar that we say there has been a corporate coalition between the two parties over the course of the last 15 years, with a trillion dollars having been given in liquidity supports to Canada's big banks. Why was this? It was to maintain bank profits, executive bonuses and dividend payments for Canada's big banks. Between the Conservatives and the Liberals, over the last 15 years, a trillion dollars in 2024 dollars has been given to Canada's big banks. When we talk about oil and gas CEOs, a regular stipend with massive subsidies that was given under the Conservatives has continued under the Liberals. The NDP has forced major improvements, with significant steps forward, but the reality is that the legacy of the Harper regime is terrible. It continues today because the Liberals have simply not stepped up to do what is right, to ensure that we have a fair tax system, that the terrible legacy of the infamous Harper tax haven treaties has finally ended, that banks stop receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in supports, and that oil and gas CEOs stop being subsidized off the public purse. Those are steps that an NDP government would take.

1536 words

Harper

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

May/21/24 10:21:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that the member was in the House earlier in the debate when a Conservative colleague stood up and tried to glowingly suggest that Stephen Harper had actually balanced a budget in 2015. I was not here at that time, but I certainly know how Stephen Harper did that. He did that by selling off shares of GM. He did that on the backs of veterans. He did that by increasing old age security to 67. He did a number of things. Therefore, when Conservatives talk about balancing a budget, what they are really talking about is cuts and cutting as much as they can, because they do not believe in these social programs. Could the member give some insight, since he was here at that time?

130 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/21/24 10:22:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Harper government was the worst government in Canadian history. Yes, the Conservatives cut and they slashed services, but they never balanced the budget. They slashed services to seniors, to veterans, to the most vulnerable. They would announce, “Oh, next year is going to be different. We're going to balance the budget.” However, they never did. They used sleight of hand; they tried to reconfigure the budget, but they had a deficit each and every year, sometimes an enormous one. Now, for folks who want to check that, they can look at the fiscal period returns issued by the Ministry of Finance, which is surely not a hotbed of social democrats. The fiscal period returns have compared all governments, federal and provincial, over the course of the last 40 years. What those fiscal period returns tell us is that Conservatives and Liberals are woefully inadequate in managing money and paying down debt. However, the best administrations have been, uniformly over the last 40 years, NDP governments in the provinces, which have balanced budgets and paid down debt more than any other political party. Folks should not believe me; they should consult the fiscal period returns and see the proof.

204 words

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

May/21/24 10:23:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague said something interesting. He said that, ever since the Harper government lost power nine years ago, the Liberals have not stood up to do what is right and fair. In other words, he just admitted that the Liberals have not been getting the job done for the past nine years and that they are not doing things fairly. If there is one thing the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are fighting, one thing we agree on, it is injustice. We want to fight injustice. We know for a fact that most of the money allocated to programs the NDP lobbied for will not flow until after the next election. With things going the way they are going, the Conservatives might well take power and never implement those programs, so I have to ask myself why the NDP is not positioning itself as the progressive party in the rest of Canada. It could position itself as the party that is not corrupt. It could campaign on that to make sure these programs will actually be set up. Apparently the NDP does not have the courage to do that and is supporting the Trudeau government. Polls say they are going down with him. My question, therefore, is this: Why not trigger an election right now?

221 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 10:25:10 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member that sitting members are not to be referred to by name. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

25 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/21/24 10:25:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really like my colleague, but he is mistaken. First, dental care is already being offered to Quebeckers. The services covered by the pharmacare program will make a big difference. They already have the support of Quebec's major unions. What the NDP is doing is already having a positive impact on people's daily lives. I could go on, but this impact will continue to grow. The next election will be a referendum election. I know that my colleague loves referendums, but this one will be a referendum election for the millions of Quebeckers and the millions of Canadians who receive dental care, about whether they want to keep those services. Pharmacare will assist six million Canadians with insulin and nine million Canadians with contraception. Do people want to keep these services? I am convinced that people will say yes, that they will want to keep these services and avoid the cuts and all the ravages of the Conservative Party. I am convinced that they want the stability that comes with the NDP, that makes it possible to provide all these services, and with better financial management as well.

192 words

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC)

May/21/24 10:26:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak to the budget. A big part of what politicians do is decide which problems in society need to be solved by governments and which problems are best left to individuals and to families and to the private sector. The Liberal government, with its NDP coalition partners, spends a great deal of time, effort, energy and taxpayers' money trying to solve all sorts of problems, while unfortunately accomplishing very little and more often than not being counterproductive. I remember when the finance minister presented her budget last month. She received one partial standing ovation from the official opposition when she said: There are those who claim that the only good thing government can do when it comes to economic growth is to get out of the way. The finance minister went on to cite the example of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project as an example of her government's success when it comes to government intervention in the economy. It was not too long ago that resource companies and international investors were excited about all of the potential pipeline projects in this country, such as northern gateway, Keystone XL and energy east, just to name a few. Building pipelines such as these is something that private sector companies are able to do in most countries, but sadly not in Canada. All of the blueprints for all of these pipeline projects have been sitting on the shelf collecting dust for years because the Liberal government has made it practically impossible for the private sector to get projects like this built through its anti-development legislation, such as Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and Bill C-48, the “west coast oil tanker ban”. It is sad that the finance minister would cite, as a success story, the one lonely, solitary pipeline expansion project that the government decided to take over while all the others were being chased away. It is also worth noting that this was not a new pipeline being built. It was simply the twinning of an existing pipeline, with a new pipe being laid right alongside the old one. This raises the question: How long did it take to build the new pipeline and how long did it take to build the old one? The proposal for the original Trans Mountain pipeline was submitted for approval in 1951. Construction was finished in 1952. Compare that to the decade that it has taken for the expansion to be completed. That makes this project hardly anything for the Liberal government to brag about. One also cannot help but be concerned about the cost overruns that have happened under the Liberal government's watch. The Trans Mountain expansion was originally estimated to cost $7 billion. The final price came in at $34 billion. When a fivefold increase in total cost is touted as a success story, that should give all Canadians pause the next time the Liberal government sets out on one of its interventions into the economy. The finance minister went on to talk about her government's new school lunch program. It seems that the Liberals have just recently discovered what Conservatives and food banks have been saying for years, namely that food bank use has skyrocketed under the Liberal government. According to a report by Food Banks Canada, nearly two million Canadians had to use food banks in March of last year. That is a 32% increase from the year before. Furthermore, one third of food bank users are children. I did not hear the finance minister mention under whose watch food bank use skyrocketed. I did not hear anything in her speech about the Liberals increasing their carbon tax again this year on the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who truck the food and the grocers who refrigerate the food, and about all of those costs being passed on to consumers at the grocery store. I also did not hear anything from the finance minister about passing Bill C-234 in its original form to exempt grain drying and barn heating from the carbon tax so that those costs are not passed on to consumers in the form of higher grocery prices. I did not hear anything about the Liberals' $40-billion deficit driving up interest rates or the $60 billion in debt servicing charges making it more difficult for Canadians to make ends meet and causing Canadians to have to choose between putting a roof over their heads or putting food onto the dinner tables. Instead of focusing on the root cause of the cost of living crisis, the Liberals have decided to bring in yet another government program. This time, it is a nationwide school lunch program. While school lunch programs are certainly a reasonable and beneficial public policy, anyone who bothers to take a brief skim of section 91 and section 92 of our Constitution will tell us this is clearly the jurisdiction of provincial governments and best left to provincial ministries of education and social services. What I find so frustrating about the Liberal government is not only that it is bad at capitalism, but also that it is just as bad at socialism. Take, for example, the new Canada disability benefit. This program resulted from the passage of Bill C-22, a bill the Liberals introduced almost two years ago. The stated objective of this bill was actually very reasonable; it was to provide a social safety net for Canadians living with disabilities so that no one has to live in poverty due to a disability. Personally, I have always felt programs such as this are best left to provincial governments. In my home province of Saskatchewan, we have a program called the Saskatchewan assured income for disability, SAID, program. I also believe very strongly in an inclusive society for persons with disabilities, so if the federal government wanted to join in, I certainly was not going to stand in the way. It seems that everyone else in this chamber felt the same way since Bill C-22 passed unanimously last year. When the details of the Canada disability benefit were announced in the budget, they were certainly a disappointment for disability advocates everywhere, with the maximum benefit being only $200 per month and not one thin dime being paid out until July of next year. Two hundred dollars per month is not enough for anyone in this country to live off, even before inflation and the cost of living skyrocketed under the government. After nine years of the Liberal government, and with the introduction of this budget, the size of the federal government and the cost of the federal government have now doubled under the Liberals' watch. After nine years, the government has come to the point where literally all of the revenue from the GST goes toward merely paying the interest on the federal debt. The Liberals are adding another $40 billion to the federal debt this year, which now stands at well over $1 trillion and rising. I come back to the finance minister's statement, when she said that the only good thing the government can do when it comes to economic growth is to get out of the way. A more accurate statement would be that the only good thing that the current government can do is to get out of the way. It is time for a new Conservative government to replace the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners and to fix the budget as well as the many other problems they have created. Therefore, Conservatives will vote against this budget and we will vote non-confidence in the government.

1294 words

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

May/21/24 10:35:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if I understand this correctly, Conservatives are saying it is this government's fault people have to use food banks, but when this government puts forward a solution to that, this member says it is not in the jurisdiction of the federal government, one should read our Constitution and the federal government should have nothing to do with this. The member spoke as though he was very complimentary and understood and encouraged school food programs. He must know Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program, but yet he not only will vote against this budget that puts money into it, but also voted against the national school food program policy that came before the House about three months ago. We are expected to believe this is all because the Constitution says we should not do anything about it.

145 words

Food

Mr. Michael Kram

May/21/24 10:36:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, good heavens. Where do I begin? Yes, the Liberal government has caused a lot of problems in this country. Most notably is the increased use of food banks, especially among children, over the last nine years of the government. I would also really encourage the member to read this country's Constitution. I do not know what it is like in his home province of Ontario, but in Saskatchewan every school can be designated as a community school if it is in a neighbourhood with a low enough income and a low enough poverty level, and those schools are given school food programs on the basis of the individual need. I do not understand why we need a national school food program when provincial governments are already doing exactly that.

132 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/21/24 10:37:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Regina—Wascana mentioned the northern gateway pipeline. What he did not mention was that the northern gateway pipeline and the plan by Enbridge to bring crude oil supertankers to the north coast of B.C. was wholly rejected by municipalities, first nations, anglers, commercial fishermen and the majority of the people of the District of Kitimat, who held a specific referendum on that issue. The culmination of that effort led to Bill C-48, the north coast Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. I say this with no animus to my colleague personally, but his leader is going around the country saying that a Conservative government would tear up that oil tanker moratorium as one of its first acts in office. Can my friend down the way confirm if that is true? Can he say it loud enough for the people all the way on the west coast of Canada, on Haida Gwaii, in Prince Rupert and Klemtu, and all of the—

167 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 10:38:46 p.m.
Watch

We get the gist of it. The hon. member for Regina—Wascana.

13 words

Mr. Michael Kram

May/21/24 10:38:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have said literally hundreds of times on the campaign trail that yes, Conservatives are opposed to Bill C-48, the west coast oil tanker ban. That is because Canada's oil and gas do not do anyone any good when they just sit there in the ground doing nothing. Other countries around the world buy their oil and gas from Saudi Arabia and Russia. That is so counterproductive to building a productive Canadian society and a better place for our allies all around the world. Yes, we will certainly get oil and gas flowing to our allies and around the world.

104 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)

May/21/24 10:39:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Regina—Wascana for his wonderful speech. He and I share a passion when it comes to supporting Canada's world-class energy industry. Can he share some of what he hears from people in Regina on the impact the anti-energy government has had on the people and the jobs in Regina—Wascana?

64 words

Mr. Michael Kram

May/21/24 10:40:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all of her advocacy for Canada's oil and gas sector. In my riding of Regina—Wascana, it is not just the oil and gas workers who benefit from the natural resource sector. It is not just the steelworkers at EVRAZ north of Regina who make the pipelines who benefit from the oil and gas sector. In any given year, between 10% and 15% of the provincial government's revenue comes from natural resource royalties. That is how the provincial government can afford to build schools and hospitals, and make our society a better place.

106 words