44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/13/24 2:12:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the costly coalition simply is not worth the cost. The incompetent finance minister is wriggling and squirming to find money to pay for her uncontrolled inflationary spending. What is her latest idea? It is raising taxes on doctors, home builders, entrepreneurs and farmers. Taxing doctors means it is harder to find one. Taxing home builders means fewer homes. Taxing small business means fewer paycheques. Taxing farmers drives up food costs.
Canada's food professor said, “to suggest that this change affects only a minimal number of Canadians...is misleading...it actually affects a lot of businesses, including in the agri-food sector...start[ing] with farmers.” Businesses, jobs, doctors and food production will leave Canada. Everyone left behind will pay the price with fewer jobs and higher costs for everything. This is the opposite of fair. This is a unfair.
Conservatives will restore Canada to a country where hard work earns powerful paycheques that buys affordable food, gas and homes in safe neighbourhoods. It is time for a change. Let us bring it home.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 2:30:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that this country has had a deplorable history of depriving indigenous communities of the things that they need to thrive.
In fact, since we have taken office, spending on indigenous infrastructure and priorities has increased by 185%. It speaks to the lack of effort by those Conservatives, when they were in government, to actually prioritize the needs of indigenous children. We will keep working to close that gap.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:36:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was saying that I really urge all parties to vote in favour of supports for new housing, supports for the Canadian Armed Forces and supports for Canadians via ESDC. These are measures that are important for the functioning of our country and for the protection and defence of our country. I am sure that all members of this House will recognize that importance.
In terms of the supplementary estimates (A), the estimates present a total of $12.7 billion in incremental budgetary spending, which reflects $11.2 billion to be voted on and a $1.5-billion increase in forecast statutory expenditures.
The primary objectives for that new voted spending on the organizations responsible for that spending are settlements to address past grievances and historic harms committed against indigenous peoples. For example, $1.8 billion is for agricultural benefits and claims and $1.5 billion is for federal Indian day schools and Indian residential schools day scholar settlements.
Funds are also requested by Citizenship and Immigration Canada for support and services for migrants, such as $411 million for the interim federal health program.
Finally, $604.9 million is requested by Transport Canada for purchase incentives for zero-emission vehicles.
The main estimates also include additional information about an important priority for our government: refocusing government spending, as first announced in budget 2023. At the beginning of this exercise, I asked ministers to find savings in their organizations. We have already announced some results. I also want to say that, with this initiative, we will refocus our government's spending on Canadians' current priorities while ensuring that we do not reduce the direct supports and services Canadians need.
As indicated in the main estimates, the government is on track to refocus $15.8 billion over five years and $4.8 billion annually thereafter. This is a very important exercise. It is our government's first initiative to address government spending. The goal of the exercise is to refocus spending, in other words, to spend smarter. The goal is not to reduce the programs and services Canadians rely on.
The fact of the matter is that the government is doing what Canadians across our country are doing, which is examining their own pocketbooks. By refocusing funds to Canadians' most important priorities in this way, the government is ensuring that it can continue to invest in Canadians and in the Canadian economy for years to come.
I want to assure members that this process is and will continue to be fully transparent, as it has been from the start. The government will continue to provide details on the initiative through departmental plans and departmental results reports. To that end, the estimates support Parliament's review of proposed new government spending and the bills ensuring appropriation that will occur thereafter.
Every year, the main estimates and related documents provide clear insight into how the government proposes to allocate taxpayer dollars and help to ensure that our spending is transparent and accountable. I cannot overstate the importance of this information to the functioning of our system of government and our parliamentary democracy.
In safeguarding our democracy, exercising oversight of government spending is one of the most important roles that parliamentarians can play on behalf of our citizens.
To conclude, I would like to say that funding in the main estimates and supplementary estimates (A) is important to delivering on the government's commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians as well as other key priorities: affordable housing, health care, dental care and supports for Canadian families, the elderly included.
That is what we will continue to put on the table. That is what we urge all members of this House to vote in favour of, and to that end, I will encourage us all to support the motion before us.
642 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:42:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board talked about providing clear insight into spending in the departmental plans and the estimates process, as well as transparency on all government spending, yet the departmental plans and the departmental results show that almost one-quarter of departments had zero targets set and zero dates set to achieve such targets.
How is Parliament supposed to be providing oversight and proper vetting of spending when the government itself is not even providing targets for the spending or what it plans to achieve in the spending on fully one-quarter of its programs?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:45:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question very much.
We continue to support the Canadian Armed Forces, for example by providing $28.8 billion in our budget. We continue to support them with other measures as well.
We recently released an update to our defence policy. It increases our spending for the Canadian Armed Forces, and we continue to increase our spending to achieve the 2% target, but there is still a lot of work to be done on that score, and that includes our procurement and our work with our NATO allies, as well as with the United States.
I would like to mention that when I was minister of national defence, I announced $40 million for NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, for our continental defences, especially in the Arctic. It is a priority for our government and for me too.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:48:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the main estimates
One of the key components to our estimates process is to ensure that we have an open, transparent and accountable government. Canadians and the parliamentarians who represent them have a right to know how public funds are being spent so they can hold government to account. That is why, in addition to the estimates documents, reporting tools such as the GC InfoBase and the Open Government portal provide easily accessible and easy-to-understand information to Canadians about authorities approved by Parliament.
With respect to the specific numbers, I will begin with the highlights of the main estimates for 2024-25. This year's main estimates present a total of $191.6 billion in voted-on spending. Also presented are non-budgetary expenditures of $1.2 billion. Some significant investments included in these estimates are $28.8 billion for national defence, including support for Ukraine, and training and equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces; $20.9 billion for Indigenous Services for programs for indigenous communities and legal settlements; $8.4 billion for Global Affairs Canada to advance Canada's international relations; $8.4 billion for Health Canada, including funding to expand the Canadian dental care plan; and $5.6 billion for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for much-needed housing infrastructure.
All the funding in the main estimates allows the government to provide many different programs and services to Canadians and support other levels of government, organizations and individuals through transfer payments. The statutory spending in the estimates, which is the spending that has been approved in previous legislation, includes $81.1 billion in elderly benefits, $52.1 billion for the Canada health transfer, $25.3 billion for fiscal equalization, $16.9 billion for the Canada social transfer and $11.4 billion for the Canada carbon rebate.
I would now like to turn to the supplementary estimates (A). Overall, the estimates present a total of $12.7 billion in programs and supports for Canadians. Here are some of the highlights. First I would like to note that much of the new voted spending is requested by Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada for settlements with indigenous groups. As the Prime Minister has stated on several occasions, no relationship is more important to Canada than our relationship with indigenous peoples. This is why we are continuing to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to honour treaty rights and resolve historical wrongs.
To that end, the supplementary estimates include $1.8 billion for agricultural benefits claims. These funds would support the negotiation and settlement of agricultural benefit claims related to Treaty Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 10, which are part of a series of 11 treaties made between the Crown and first nations from 1871 to 1921. There is also $1.5 billion for federal Indian day schools and Indian residential schools day scholars settlements. This will be used for compensation, administration costs and legal services relating to these two settlements.
There is $1 billion to replenish the specific claims settlement fund, based on anticipated payments for negotiated settlements and tribunal awards up to $150 million. The supplementary estimates also include $447.9 million to settle historical claims, and the federal government is committed to resolving legal challenges through respectful discussions and mediation. As such, it is in active discussions related to various legal challenges. The funding would ensure that Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs is in a position to quickly implement negotiated settlements should agreements be reached.
Finally, there is $393.1 million for land-related claims and litigation, and another $303.6 million for a settlement providing compensation for individuals placed in federal Indian boarding homes.
There is new voted spending for the Department of Indigenous Services to improve the lives of indigenous peoples and create new opportunities in communities across the country. For example, there is $769.7 million for water and waste-water treatment. This includes the construction of new water and waste-water infrastructure on reserves, repairs and upgrades to existing systems, facility operations and maintenance, training of system operators, water monitoring and testing, and development of local governance capacity.
The Department of Indigenous Services is also requesting $633.5 million to improve services that preserve the ability of indigenous families to care for children in their communities, such as the availability of safe and adequate housing for children on reserve.
Let me also mention spending for immigration. Canada continues to bring people from other countries to safety and provide them with resettlement and settlement supports. As such, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is seeking funding for support and services for migrants. This includes $411.2 million for the interim federal health program, which provides limited temporary health care coverage to specific groups of foreign nationals, including asylum claimants and refugees who are not yet eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance. There is also $314.5 million for the interim housing assistance program, through which the government provides funding to provincial and municipal governments to address housing pressures resulting from increased volumes of asylum claimants.
As the House knows, a priority of the government is to also cut greenhouse gas emissions. To help meet our 2030 emissions reduction target and reach net zero by 2050, we are making it more affordable for Canadians to switch to zero-emission vehicles. Accordingly, the Department of Transport is requesting $604.9 million to provide purchase incentives of up to $5,000 for eligible zero-emission vehicles.
Another organization, the Department of Veterans Affairs, is requesting $471.4 million for compensation and administrative costs relating to settlement for veterans as part of the Manuge class action settlement.
I would also note that, of the planned voting, about $1.6 billion relates to the funding announced in budget 2024. This includes the already mentioned incentives for the zero-emission vehicle programs as well as the interim federal health program.
The voted funding already announced in the budget also includes $141.2 million for temporary accommodation and support services for asylum claimants, $121.3 million for the Inuit child first initiative and $100.5 million to advance indigenous children and family service laws.
I would also like to address the changes in the plan's statutory expenditures, which are shown for information purposes. Statutory budgetary expenditures are forecast to rise $1.5 billion, 0.6%, to a total of $259.1 billion.
Finally, there are statutory non-budgetary expenditures. These are forecast to rise, reflecting the additional allocation of $1.3 billion to the International Monetary Fund's Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust announced in September 2023.
To conclude, the funding for federal programs and services presented in the main estimates and supplementary estimates (A) demonstrates the government's actions to make life better for all Canadians. It shows that the government is responding to immediate needs while continuing to make long-term investments that benefit all of our citizens.
I would remind my hon. colleagues that we have a responsibility to authorize the spending on behalf of and for the benefit of Canadians, and I encourage everyone to support this.
1196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:58:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am looking at the main estimates, and Public Safety is asking for $1.6 billion, yet when I look at its departmental results, it failed to achieve 54% of its goals for the year. Why should Canadians trust the Liberal government to continue such spending, $1.6 billion, when it is failing over 50% of the time?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:00:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record. If the member looks at the public accounts, she will see that the spending actually started to drop in 2015, as soon as the Liberal government took over. There were cuts to public safety and also to CBSA. As the member talked about safety in the community, I noticed one of the failures of the government was that it set a target of 5,200 police-reported crimes for 100,000 population, yet it actually ended up with 6,625. That was a 27% higher number of police-reported crimes than what the Liberals targeted. Why is the government failing to protect its citizens?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:03:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is the evening when we vote on the estimates, and they are estimates, in fact, because we really never know how much the government is going to spend, so we really can only estimate. Today proves to be no different.
This is the result of two things. First, there is the complete out-of-control spending by the Liberal government. We have seen it since 2015, but it has increased rapidly since 2020, and now it is just completely out of control. The second thing, as a result of this out-of-control spending, is that the government makes Canadians pay for its incompetence and for its moral disregard, time and time again. This has three negative effects on the nation. It taxes generational wealth. It taxes the middle class. It destroys productivity.
Let us take a quick look at the numbers to justify what I am saying. We have a current deficit of $39.8 billion. In the beginning, I used to have to double-check myself to see if I was supposed to be saying “million”. Now, I feel very confident in saying billion because it is, in fact, $39.8 billion. There is new spending of $52.9 billion, which is a huge number. There are debt servicing costs of $54.1 billion and additional debt servicing costs of $1.9 billion. That was a surprise I raised at the government operations committee to the President of the Treasury Board, which I think I would notice an anomaly like that on my credit card, were that the case.
The government claims to have refocused $15.4 billion of spending. That was the government's initiative, but that initiative is 3.5 times less than the actual amount of new spending. There is quite a differentiation between the two. We see here a government that just has an absolute spending problem.
In fact, it was reported in The Globe and Mail, in an article I have. It states, “the government does not have a revenue problem. Annual federal revenue is increasing and has grown (nominally) more than $185-billion (or 66.2 per cent) from 2014-15 to 2023-24.
“Before tabling the budget in April, the government was already anticipating annual revenue to increase by more than $27-billion this year. But the government has chosen to spend every dime it takes in (and then some) instead of being disciplined.
“Years of unrestrained spending and borrowing have led to a precarious fiscal situation in Ottawa.”
The government “largely chose” to continue spending, and “clearly raising taxes to generate revenue was unnecessary and could have been avoided with more disciplined spending.” It was unnecessary.
Next, I would like to provide some examples of that wasteful spending. There was the $169.5 million sole-sourced contract for ventilators purchased at $220,000 each, that have now been sold for $6 apiece for scrap. That is the first example. The second example is Parks Canada spending $12 million on culling deer in British Columbia, a job my caucus colleagues say that Canadian hunters would have done for free. The Auditor General identified at least $32 billion in overpayments and suspicious payments by ESDC, which is not a surprise at all with the current government.
In March, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, someone the government likes to gag, released a report, warning that the Prime Minister's government spending plans remained out of control. The amount that taxpayers spend just to service the national debt is expected to go up 33.4% in 2024 and 11.6% in 2025. That means the amount we pay just to cover the interest on the national debt will rise from $35 billion to $46.7 billion in 2024 and to $52.1 billion in 2025.
It is important to put those figures in perspective because those debt payments offer no services and rob precious dollars from services that the government likes to brag about. The debt payments will be double the amount we will spend on the military. When I make reference to these amounts, they are not small amounts that I am referring to.
I will now turn to the second part, which is the pain that the government inflicts upon its citizens in an effort to compensate for its spending problem. This is out of incompetence and a lack of moral guidance.
The first example I will give is from an article in The Globe and Mail. It states, “50 per cent of taxpayers who claim more than $250,000 [worth] of capital gains in a year earned less than $117,592 in normal annual income from 2011 to 2021.... Contrary to the government's claims, the capital gains tax...will [actually] affect 4.74 million investors in [different] Canadian companies.”
This also means, as I said, regarding the productivity, as it says in the article, “that potential entrepreneurs or investors are more likely to take their ideas and money elsewhere, and Canadians will continue to suffer the consequences of a stagnating economy.”
On the carbon tax, just this week Canadians discovered that, for years, the Prime Minister has been hiding the fact that the carbon tax will cost Canadians $30.5 billion by 2030 and that this works out to $1,824 per family in extra annual costs.
As well, I will be splitting my time with the wonderful member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, an individual I like and enjoy very much.
I will continue with my examples. CTV News wrote that Joseph Steinberg, an associate professor with the University of Toronto's economic department, said, “I don't think that this...policy is likely to be successful”. He also said, “Given what my research into policies on raising taxes on the wealthy has found...since we don't enforce any rules against tax avoidance and tax evasion, these kinds of policies are really unlikely to raise much, if any, in the way of tax revenues.” This is not surprising given the ESDC fraud I mentioned moments ago.
The CTV news article went on to say, “The Canada Revenue Agency estimates Canada loses nearly $3 billion a year in offshore investing, which is close to how much the government projects to bring in each year with the changes.”
In addition, economist Jack Mintz estimated that “1.25 million individuals—not just 44,000—will make a capital gain greater than $250,000 at some time in their taxpaying life”, not just this year alone. He states, “Many of these people will have relatively modest incomes and only earn extraordinary capital gains at retirement or death.”
The official opposition shares these stories every day, during question period and in our interventions, in the House of Commons.
Jack Mintz says, “How many Canadian investors would be affected by higher capital gains taxes at both the personal and corporate level? In 2021, 4.74 million tax filers (15.7 per cent).... Of those, 69 per cent—3.29 million—had incomes below $100,000.”
They are the middle class. He goes on to say, “The increase in corporate capital gains tax is going to hurt many Canadians investors with middle or modest incomes.”
The Globe and Mail states, “the Liberal plan to raise the taxable portion of capital gains over $250,000 for individuals, and of all capital gains for corporations in most trusts, is not the end result of a careful examination of tax policy, but of the Liberals' need to raise billions of dollars to plug a hole in their latest budget.” The government is always reactive.
The article goes on to say, “The increase to the capital-gains inclusion rate will take place [right] when Canada's lagging productivity needs a boost. Higher taxes on investment will be a drag on the economy and could harm our diminishing prosperity.”
The government has had years in office to address the issues dominating Canadian politics today, such as housing costs, affordability and, yes, the income gap, which has grown steadily since 2015, yet it has failed to address these.
The Financial Post has a headline I love, which reads, “Liberals playing with inclusion rates is divisive policy at its worst”. The article states, “the government ignored almost every single recommendation made about the proposals by very qualified people and great organizations. The Joint Committee on Taxation of the Canadian Bar Association and CPA Canada made some excellent technical recommendations [that were ignored].”
Thomas Sowell is quoted in the article as saying, “The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever-rising tax rates to cover [increasing] spending.”
As I come to the last 30 seconds of my speech, I would just like to reiterate what I said at the beginning. The current government has a significant spending problem, which is evident by the numbers I have put here today. It does not responsibly address it through lowering its spending and through not having unethical overspending like we see with the arrive scam and the green slush fund; rather, the government enforces this on Canadians. It makes them pay for its incompetence and for its moral disregard through tools like the carbon tax and the capital gains tax. This has to stop. Tonight in the estimates, though, we are not going to—
1600 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:18:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to start this conversation with a quote from Margaret Thatcher. Of course, the honourable and fabulous Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that one eventually “run[s] out of other people's money.”
We have hit that point. I think it is official. The government has hit rock bottom. However, it will find a way, just as it has done with ethics scandals, to find a level even below rock bottom.
Let us take a look at the facts right now. When we look at the way to balance a budget or to bring a fiscal house in order, a government has three levers. One is economic growth. The more an economy grows, the more production there is, and the more there is to tax. That brings us to the next one, which is revenue. The more revenue there is, the more money is coming in. The higher the taxes are, the more revenue is coming in. The third part is expenditures. We have seen, of course, that this is the money going out the door. We have growth. We have the money coming in the door and going out the door. Let us take a systematic approach. We will start with government expenditures.
The reality is that no government has ever spent anywhere near the amount of money the government will be spending this year and what it has forecast in its main estimates. The main estimates present a spending of a total of $449.2 billion; $191.6 billion is to be voted on, and $257.6 billion is statutory.
We can take that and look at where we were at the end of 2015, when we were spending about $250 billion. This is nearly a doubling of government expenditures in less than 10 years. That is truly a shocking number. The reality is that this could actually be affordable, potentially, if we had the economic growth to back it up. However, as we will see in a moment, we do not. The reality is that more Canadians are paying more money. Nine out of 10 in the middle class are paying more. We have seen, right from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that the carbon tax is costing the majority of Canadians money. We saw, actually, just from their own secret report, because of the pushing and prodding of one of my colleagues at finance committee, they admitted that $30 billion in additional funds is coming out of Canadians' pockets just in the form of indirect costs of the carbon tax alone.
We have seen that the spending just keeps going. The question we will often hear from the other side of the aisle is this: What would Conservatives change?
Here are a couple of things that I will just rattle off: $250 million to the Asian infrastructure bank, $76 million of funding awarded in the green slush fund to brazen conflicts of interest, $12 million in ineligible contracts, $50 million to Mastercard and $12 million to Loblaws for fridges. It just goes on, with $200 million to McKinsey and millions of dollars being wasted by the government. It is truly just a firehose of spending going anywhere and everywhere. We have seen the expenditures increase and increase.
Before we talk about the increase in taxes, let us talk a bit about economic growth. The reality is that, if an economy is thriving and doing well, it will benefit everyone, depending on how the wealth gets split up. There are arguments to be had, and those are arguments that are valuable and should be had. If, however, there is no revenue coming in, there is no revenue to redistribute. Often, in worse economic times, the ones who suffer the most are the most vulnerable.
Let us look at the government's economic record. Since 2015, we are looking at a nearly flat or a zero growth in GDP per capita. GDP per capita can really be used interchangeably with incomes, because it is a measure of how much every Canadian's economic livelihood is increasing on average. We have had almost no growth when it comes to Canadians.
We have also seen record numbers of children now falling into poverty and people going to the food banks, including record numbers of children. We have an economy that is stalled. We have a lost decade here in Canada.
It is not just me saying what I am going to say. Members can look to John Manley, former Liberal finance minister; Bill Morneau, former Liberal finance minister; and David Dodge, current Liberal and former governor of the Bank of Canada. These individuals are all saying the same thing: Canada needs to focus more on growth. We need to have our economy grow because, of course, this will help our citizens, and it will also help secure our government. More economic growth means the government can collect more and do more to protect health care and other important social safety nets. Just to sum up, we have actually had record revenue because the current government is obsessed with increasing taxes and increasing the burden on middle-class Canadians. Nine out of 10 people pay more.
Of course, the Liberals' most recent cash grab is the capital gains tax. They create the fabrication that it will only affect the ultrarich. Nothing could be further from the truth. LiUNA, a union, recently came out opposing it because its members realize it. Physicians, electricians and mechanics realize it. Canadians who are taking the steps to secure their retirement through a secondary rental property realize it. Parents who are buying a secondary house to invest in their children, because the children cannot afford a house anymore, realize it. This is a cash grab. It is true that there is a limited portion of the population that will realize it in a given year; however, the reality is that although only 1% of Canadians will die in a year, 100% of us will eventually die. Much the same logic applies to capital gains.
We have seen the government increase the tax burden on the middle class to pay for the McKinseys and, perhaps worst of all, to pay $54 billion in interest, which goes to wealthy bankers and bondholders. The government is literally robbing the middle class, endangering our most vulnerable in order to help its Liberal-insider buddies. That is the Liberals' story on taxation. We have seen what happened to spending, and the Liberals' growth is equally as bad.
What is the result of this? People at the Fraser Institute said that we are in the worst decline in the standard of living in the last 40 years. I am thankful for the Fraser Institute's work, but simply talking to our neighbours and to our constituents will reveal the same thing. It was almost taken as a given, when I was growing up, that we would do better than our parents and that my kids would do better than I did. This was just a reality that was going to happen. Unfortunately, we have seen that reality disappear in front of our very eyes. At this point, to be able to afford a house is beyond the aspirations of many Canadians and many young folks, who are just struggling to barely get by.
We are in a place where there are encampments from coast to coast to coast. There are dumpster-diving communities, who need to get food out of garbage cans. Workers are living out of their cars. Students are living underneath bridges. This is not right, and we can quote all the empirical numbers we want, but all we really need to do is go out there and talk to our constituents, and we will hear just the same. I am sure, whether Conservative, Liberal or NDP, we are all hearing the same thing.
As I noted when I started my speech, Margaret Thatcher once very wisely said that the problem with socialism is that one eventually “run[s] out of other people's money.” With a debt of over $1.3 trillion, with interest payments of over $54 billion and with a government incapable of doing the most basic of services, such as delivering passports, we have hit rock bottom. I do not want to see what is next in the current Liberal government.
1405 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:33:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. That is unfortunate though, because I have so much to say.
I am going to break free from the populist, accusatory cycle where each person accuses another of having done this or that. I am going to offer some actual substance. In the last few minutes, people have been talking about the cost of groceries. That is what I am going to talk about. I am going to talk about feeding the people. I am going to talk about agriculture and agri-food.
Of course, there are a number of things missing from the government's budget. My colleague referred to seniors and old age security, which the government stubbornly refuses to increase starting at the age of 65, even though people need it. The government could consider making unconditional health transfers to the provinces, rather than inventing new pan-Canadian programs, claiming that it has the knowledge and is going to tell the provinces what to do. It is introducing a new program that will be added on top of what Quebec is already doing. What is more, in their emotional speeches, they have the nerve to tell us that they are inspired by Quebec, which is ahead of the rest of Canada on the social front. I have a confession to make: We are not just ahead of the game socially; we are ahead in a lot of areas.
I would like to see a federal government that looks after its responsibilities, that has the ability to issue passports on time and get work permits to our temporary foreign workers. These workers end up in a very vulnerable situation when their one and only employer, who was expected to employ them for a year or three, lays them off after three months. They are left with nothing. Our federal government is not competent enough to issue work permits in a timely manner. The government recently made a commitment to issue permits within 30 days. I look forward to that. I want to believe it. These temporary foreign workers have no choice but to work illegally, so they are exploited. That makes no sense. We do not have to put up with that in a G7 country. It is terrible.
Shoreline erosion is another issue that I work on a lot in my riding. We ask for funds but get none, even though the issue is caused by shipping on the St. Lawrence, which makes it a federal responsibility.
A while ago, I spoke with the President of the Treasury Board about defence. Canada is a junior member of NATO, yet it is still not investing the necessary funds, despite the current climate of uncertainty. Why?
I just mentioned all those things, and now I will get into my speech. This speech is for the folks at home. It is for people who live in Quebec City, Montreal, Rimouski, Saint‑Félix‑de‑Valois, Louiseville, Trois‑Rivières and everywhere else in Quebec. It is for folks in Laval who are tuning in, sitting in front of the television in their basement. It is for Hugues and his son, Noah, who are watching us and wondering if we are going to help them and make sure grocery prices go down. Let us be serious. What I am seeing in the government's measures is that Canada is still spending less than 1% on support for agriculture and agri-food. I think that is totally ridiculous. I think the government needs to wake up and put some money into that.
I want to talk about that and address the people at home because I also want to draw their attention to the fact that most people take the agriculture and agri-food sectors for granted. This week, there was a press conference with produce growers, strawberry and raspberry producers, berry producers. They came to explain to the Minister of Agriculture why he urgently needs to launch the AgriRecovery initiative that he never seems to get around to launching. We keep being told that the officials are doing the math. I would like them to work overtime because this aid has to go out. It is needed. For almost a year now, our farmers have been asking for an emergency fund, for support to help them cope with interest rates. The Government of Quebec took action. Announcements were confirmed. However, that is not enough. Let us not forget that half of our money is here in Ottawa and that agriculture is a shared jurisdiction. Talks should start without delay.
We have been talking all day about a government that was forced to release a document because this motion was about to be moved and everyone knew it was going to be adopted. That is why the government released the document, but if there had not been a motion, it would not have done so. This government is always like that.
I wish it would not wait for food shortages before taking action. It made a strange decision recently in the agri-food and agriculture sector, one that is highly open to criticism. A decision was made to reduce the percentage of foreign workers in processing plants from 30% to 20%. Someone will say that it was just a pilot project to see what would happen. All right, but we know that we need these individuals. There are not a lot of people. Only 7% of the population has even the slightest interest in agriculture and agri-food, especially processing plants, but people need to eat. We need these workers. Our industries are in jeopardy because of a serious labour shortage.
There are measures for skilled trades, of course, but the government should think more carefully before taking such action, especially since we have heard a rumour that it is thinking of reducing that number to 10%. Good luck with that. Let us be serious. These are key sectors. When will there be an investment fund, an incentive for businesses to modernize their facilities without going deep into debt and putting themselves at risk in the coming years?
Unfortunately, we saw an example of that in recent weeks with Saladexpress, which just closed. The company renovated its plant two years ago, but because of supply chain issues, inflation and problems with imports, it had to close its doors because it was so far in debt. The government needs to be there.
Various studies by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food show that there are gaps when it comes to infrastructure investments. The government needs to do more to help our farmers and to recognize what they are doing. For years, I have been pushing the idea of providing financial compensation for positive environmental actions, because when farmers protect waterways, everyone benefits. That is taking a long time to get off the ground.
The whole day has been spent talking about taxation and more negative impacts, so to speak. Can something positive also happen? I think we have to trust the people on the ground, the people who are going to innovate the first chance they get. We just need to give them the space to do it.
I want to talk about risk management programs. We asked for an emergency program to help farmers, but nothing has happened. It has been seven months since the Quebec government asked for this program, which is supposed to come to the rescue when no other program has worked. It is called AgriRecovery. Farmers have been asking for it for a year, but it has not been offered yet. We need something faster than that. We need something responsive.
Speaking of responsiveness—I have talked to the minister about this so much that I am probably nagging him—I would invite the government members to sit down with industry representatives and immediately start thinking about how we as a society are going to share the risks collectively for farmers.
The sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership will end in 2028, but the government should not wait until 2027 to start working on this. Let us not forget that the previous negotiations were held up for months because some provinces did not want to participate.
It might also be time to start accepting the fact that one-size-fits-all measures for all of Canada do not make sense. We do not all have the same climate or the same soil. We are not all the same size. Adaptation is necessary, and that means decentralizing decisions. Again, I know the good old centralizing government will not like what I am about to say, but it will have to agree to transfer funds and accept that people on the ground are best equipped to make decisions.
Eating and drinking is not optional. No matter what people do with their lives, they all eat and drink every day. Let us remember that and respect the people who get up early in the morning and go to bed late at night because they feed our people.
1536 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:48:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals never stop asking us for more money. They always want more, more, more. We can agree on some things, but they have to be good and serve the needs of the people. It should not just be more money to buy a new pipeline. Oil and gas companies are already making billions of dollars in profits. They can buy their own pipelines.
I would like to remind those tuning in about something very important. The largest infrastructure project in Canadian history is not designed to support health or education. No, it is a pipe for producing more oil for export to foreign markets. Canada, this great big, beautiful country, is an oil monarchy.
Now, let me get back to the matter at hand. Before proposing further additional spending every three months, I would encourage this government to think about whether it needs to spend money on things that could be described as unnecessary or low priority. I am talking about spending that is not really in step with the needs and necessities brought on by the kinds of crises facing people in this country.
We know that the supplementary estimates provide an overview of spending requirements that were not necessarily fleshed out when the main estimates were prepared, or that were clarified after the main estimates were tabled to take into account any changes that had occurred in certain programs and services. Either the Liberals planned their budget poorly with their colleagues, or they see us as cash cows and think we will pass all their future budgets, or else they are negotiating a little agreement on the back of a napkin to make sure that their government survives. I think the last option is the most likely scenario.
These estimates present $12.7 billion in additional spending, raising budgetary expenditures for the year 2024-25 from $449 billion to over $461 billion. Voted budgetary spending will increase by $11.2 billion, or 5.8%, to $202.8 billion in voted appropriations alone. This does not include statutory expenditures.
Those include a $1.9‑billion increase in public debt charges, primarily due to higher projected interest rates and higher borrowing requirements, broken down as follows: a $764‑million increase in interest on unmatured debt and $1.1 billion in other interest costs.
It is a crazy amount of debt that exploded under this government. Why does the government continue to propose costly public policies in areas that do not even fall under its responsibility? The federal government is incapable of providing good, effective public services, with programs in areas under its own responsibility. Nevertheless, it keeps funding projects that contribute to global warming. Again, Trans Mountain cost $34 billion. The goal is to extract more oil and help oil and gas companies that do not need help because they are billionaires.
Let us get into a detailed breakdown of these supplementary estimates. Basically, we can say that we agree with the way 80% of this roughly $11 billion will used, because it will go toward providing first nations, among others, with better health services, social services and better access to drinking water. Yes, I did indeed say drinking water. It is 2024, and Canada, an industrialized country that is part of the G7 and that has the largest reserve of drinking water in the world, is still incapable of providing people living on Canadian soil with drinking water. That is shameful.
In contrast, we strongly criticize allocating $22 million for national honours to mark the transition of the Crown in Canada. Some people might think that there is a lot of support for the monarchy. However, over 70% of Quebeckers are against the monarchy. This government, which supports an archaic and undemocratic institution, is asking for an additional $3 million in funding to give out little crowns and medals bearing the image of a king. Apparently, a top priority for this government is handing out little medals adorned with the effigy of someone who does not even live here and who was not democratically elected.
This country is not serious. It is completely out of touch with reality. I do not want Quebeckers to have to pay out of their own pockets for things that have very little impact on their reality and that are low on their list of priorities. I would like to remind the House that over 70% of Quebeckers think it is time to reconsider our ties with the monarchy and that the Quebec National Assembly has already ended the requirement to take an oath to the King. As we know, Canada and Quebec are two very different nations and will eventually be two very different countries.
My Conservative colleagues say that they support common sense, but they are all about the monarchy. Members will recall that the former Harper government even renamed Her Majesty's ships. These people's offices are full of monarchy memorabilia: framed pictures, posters, calendars, playing cards. Here is some common sense: $25 million supported by the Liberal and Conservative parties. The NDP has the word “democratic” in its party name. However, we do not hear the NDP members speaking out against the monarchy. I am wondering why they are supporting an additional $3 million for medals. I guess that is also a priority for the NDP.
On top of all that, there is an additional $66.8 billion that was not included in the estimates. That, along with other adjustments, bring total federal budget spending to $534.6 billion. I would like to highlight some increases that seem significant. At least, that is what the government says.
Let us talk about science and evidence. Some parties are thought to be more or less supportive of science. Others say science is important, but apparently only when it suits them. Let me give the facts. There is $8 million for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and $400,000 for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which is not insignificant. However, these are small amounts. It is one step closer to the promise made by this government in light of a report tabled by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research about the Government of Canada's graduate scholarship and post-doctoral fellowship programs in particular.
Is everybody sitting down? Twenty years is how long it has been since the federal government increased graduate scholarships by a single penny. We are not talking about painting walls in schools. For 20 years, students with the highest potential have been told that not one more penny is available for them. Science certainly must be a priority if scientists and future researchers could not get a penny more for 20 years. Despite it all, these two parties tell us that science and evidence are important. What a joke. When something is a priority, increasing financial support for it does not take 20 years. That is not what got them moving, despite all the pressure. However, historic progress has been made thanks to the work of the Bloc Québécois and my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We finally managed to increase the indexation of graduate scholarships.
I would say in closing that there are some positives, if we look for them. The good things that will be improved also need to be acknowledged. Canada has been lagging way behind on research investment for the past 20 years. It was at the back of the pack in the G7 on investment as a share of GDP. The consequences are serious, particularly for graduation rates at the graduate level, but also for the students, the researchers who want to stay here in Canada. The proof is that Canada is the only G7 country to have lost researchers since 2016.
There are certainly things we can accept in the supplementary estimates. There are other things that are not considered a priority. It is clear, once again, that the priorities are not always part of the current government's reality.
1366 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 8:04:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to split my time with the wonderful member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
Tonight we debate a supply bill, and for those Canadians who may be watching, this is an important parliamentary vehicle that authorizes the spending of money to pay for government programs and services. It has been said that it is the primary duty of parliamentarians to scrutinize and authorize executive spending, and that is what we are doing here tonight.
I would like to start with a few general observations about the economy and government. In the New Democrats' view, the economy is not a sterile entity. It is not a vague concept removed from human contact. It is instead a vital expression of our social activity. In other words, it is not something that we are to serve. The economy is something that, in New Democrats' view, should serve people and the citizens who make up our great country, and a budget is an expression to us of priorities.
As President Joe Biden famously said before he was president, “Don't tell me [your values]. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you [your values].” I think those are wise words. There are very different values expressed in this Parliament.
For the NDP, government is a positive force in society that is in place to serve Canadians. Among other things, one of the most important jobs of government is to deliver programs, services and resources that people need but are unable to provide on their own and that the marketplace is unable to deliver. To others, notably Conservatives in the House, government is something to be distrusted. It is something to be feared. It is something to be reduced to the greatest extent possible.
To the NDP, the economy is something to be incentivized, to be nurtured and to be developed to serve people. That is the end of having a healthy economy. To others in the House, and I am thinking primarily of my Conservative colleagues, people's interests are often subservient to the economy, especially to corporations whose interests are generally to prevail over individuals, with the faith that, if we let corporations have their way, somehow or other, ordinary citizens will magically benefit.
To the NDP, the budget is to spend the people's money in the best way possible to benefit Canadians and their families. To others, again, particularly Conservatives, spending is bad, and they believe that, essentially, people should be left to sink or swim on their own. The supply bill invokes several of these underlying concepts.
The supply bill is part of broader appropriation acts this year that so far will propose to spend some $191 billion this year. Major expenditures of that $191 billion would include the following: $80 billion would be spent on Canada's seniors in elderly benefits; about $52 billion would take the form of health transfers to provinces so that Canadians can go to hospitals and their doctors to get the health care they need when they need it; and about $8 billion would be spent on indigenous reconciliation, services and justice. As my honourable colleague from Nunavut points out so powerfully in the House all the time, that is a fraction of the money that is needed to deal with the huge indigenous infrastructure deficit in this country.
The supply bill that we are debating tonight would authorize approximately $128 billion of spending. What are some of the priorities that Canadians will get for that money? We can start with dental care. We made the dental care plan a condition of support of the Liberal government, and make no mistake, this is not a shared priority between the NDP and Liberals. The Liberals voted against dental care every chance they got until the NDP forced the Liberals to bring it in as a condition of our support for the government.
So far, over two million Canadian seniors have enrolled in that dental care plan. Over 100,000 seniors have already gone to the dentist. I was in a denturist office just yesterday when I was told moving stories of seniors who had not been to the dentist in many years. They had had terrible pain and suffering in their mouths, and they were getting, for the first time, their dentures they needed to help them have proper nutrition and to take care of their health.
On June 28, in a matter of two weeks, every child under the age of 18 in this country, in families that make under $90,000 a year and do not have the benefit of a private employer dental care plan, just as every person in the House has, will be able to sign up for this plan, including people living with disabilities. That will add millions more Canadians to the Canadian dental care plan.
Ultimately, we are seeing the beginning of the first, most expansive expansion of public health in this country in half a century. This will see nine million Canadians able to get the primary oral health care they need and deserve, which they have not had for six years. I would tell my Bloc colleagues that provinces, including Quebec, have not proven competent in providing this service to Canadians, even though there are certain programs in provinces. Obviously, millions of Canadians are not covered for this, and the NDP has made sure those people will have the same access as members do.
This bill would provide $1.5 billion for pharmacare. As I pointed out, this is a historic first in this country. For the first time ever, through a single-payer system, Canadians will be able to walk into pharmacies and walk out with the diabetes medication and devices and contraception devices and medication they need without paying for them directly, just like all of our other necessary and essential health care costs.
In terms of diabetes medications, pretty much every single medication necessary for a type 1 diabetic and almost everything for a type 2 diabetic would be covered by this plan, as well as continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, test strips and syringes and needles. For contraceptives, it is not only contraceptive medications by prescription, but also devices, including IUDs. That is an extraordinary measure that would help liberate women, providing them with free agency and control over their health.
There is $1 billion over five years that will be established for a school nutrition program. Canada is the only G7 country that does not have some form of universal access to school nutrition, and this, by the way, is not anywhere near enough. This plan would only cover a fraction of the children that go to school from grades 1 to 8 in this country, but it is a start. This is something the New Democrats also demanded.
I want to turn to housing. The housing crisis is robbing young people in this country of their hope for the future, and we are saddling our children with challenges that the generations before them did not face. Owning a home seems increasingly unattainable. Building a life and a family of their own appears increasingly unaffordable. To New Democrats, our children deserve a world of promise and possibility. The Prime Minister claimed before that housing is not his responsibility, but has failed to acknowledge the fact that it was the Liberals who walked away from this federal responsibility in the first place, and it was Conservatives who removed social spending from the CMHC out of housing a generation ago.
Today, Canada's stock of non-market housing is among the lowest across the OECD peers, at just 3.5% of total dwellings. As a consequence of successful Conservative and Liberal neglect, Canada now finds itself decades behind. Because the Conservatives and Liberals have abandoned the federal government's position in housing, encampments are expanding across the country at record levels. The financialization of housing has left one-third of all seniors' housing in Canada in the hands of institutional investors, as well as 30% of purpose-built rental buildings.
Young people are being shut out of the housing market, renters are losing hope of ever owning a home, and rent and mortgage payments are devouring an unbelievably high share of people's incomes. We need to build some nine million homes over the next 10 years. International evidence demonstrates that it is only with direct financing of non-market housing, such as co-operative, non-profit and public housing, that we will meet this challenge. This budget goes some distance in addressing that need. By the way, public spending on housing is anti-inflationary. It expands supply and puts downward pressure on prices across the housing market.
I will conclude by saying that New Democrats are supporting this budget and supply bill because we believe the federal government needs to invest in Canadians and provide the conditions so that all Canadians can thrive and prosper in this economy. That is core to New Democrat values, and we are proud of those values.
1517 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 8:14:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in his intervention, the member referenced the spending of people's money. I understand that to the extent of present Canadian taxpayers. We can talk about the amounts, but my question is about the present federal debt of $1.255 million and the ongoing deficits.
Who are the people whose money is being spent? My four children are all taxpaying citizens right now. Is he referring to my grandchildren who are not paying taxes yet? Are those the people he is referring to?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 8:15:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is always somewhat ironic when a Conservative rises in the House and talks about responsible government spending. In 2008, the Department of Finance analyzed the spending of every government of every hue and at every level in Canada since 1867, and found that it was New Democratic governments that balanced their budget the highest percentage of times. That is not an ideological statement; it is a matter of fact that the member can check.
I was in the House from 2008 to 2015, when there were eight consecutive Conservative deficits in a row, so I do not think we will take any lectures from Conservatives about responsible government spending or the impact of deficits and debt on Canadians. It is the New Democrats who actually have the best record in that regard.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:08:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me just say, right off the top, that I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West, which is the home of the world-renowned West Edmonton Mall.
We are here tonight to debate estimates and the out-of-control inflationary spending by the Liberals that is driving up the cost of literally everything for all Canadians. After nine years, there are a couple of things that we already know about these levels of obese government spending. First, the budget does not, in fact, balance itself.
An hon. member: What?
Mr. Dan Muys: It is surprising, yes.
Second, Mr. Speaker, when one does not think about monetary policy, this has an impact on the fiscal and economic situation of the country and makes it even worse.
In the recent NDP-Liberal budget, we saw another $61 billion in inflationary spending piled on to the backs of Canadians. That was on top of the $20 billion in inflationary spending piled on in the fall economic statement. That was on top of the billions piled on over the past nine years. The result is that Canadian taxpayers are now paying $58 billion in interest on the debt, which is more than the federal government sends to the provinces in health transfers.
Everyone knows that one cannot run a household on a credit card forever. Neither can one run a government by maxing out the credit card year after year. There are real-world consequences to this insatiable appetite for spending. First of all, it actually costs all of us. It is called taxes. If we think back to April of this year, common-sense Conservatives called upon the Liberal-NDP government to spike the hike, to not increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1, on its way to quadrupling.
We also know, according to a Fraser Institute study, that nine out of 10 middle-class families are now paying more in income tax. These tax increases are certainly the very last thing that Canadians need at a time when they are already facing a cost of living crisis.
Of course, the Liberals, aided by their costly coalition partners in the NDP, need money because they have spent so much. They need to increase these taxes to fuel their addiction to spending. Because they cannot prioritize spending and demand better results for the money that the federal government spends, and because they think money grows on trees, or that one just prints or borrows more, what happens is that Canadians suffer. Canadians now have to prioritize spending in their daily lives. That means doing without, cutting corners on groceries and going to the food banks because the federal government cannot rein in spending. We have seen the numbers of those going to food banks reach record-smashing levels.
Another real-world consequence of all this spending is interest rates and mortgage rates. We know from the Scotiabank report that 2% of the rate increase is attributable to overspending by the government. Other banks have agreed. This hurts Canadians renewing their mortgage. It also hurts Canadians who rent, who have seen record heights in rental prices across the country. It hurts those paying car loans and credit cards.
On a daily basis, I hear from people in the suburban communities in my riding who live in fear of those mortgage renewals. These are young families or, in some cases, seniors who have downsized. They have moved out of the GTA for a slightly more affordable house a little farther west. Those who have variable rate mortgages are telling me that they are facing, already, increases of $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 per month. Can one even imagine the hole that would blow in one's household budget?
Those who are on fixed rate mortgages are beginning to feel that gut punch as well. It is about to get even worse as more of those renewals come up. That is all because these Liberals have a spending problem.
Again, rising rents, credit card payments and mortgage payments are the last thing Canadians can afford in the time of a cost of living crisis.
There are other compounding consequences of this reckless spending and the taxes that result. How is it that Canada has the worst performing economy in the industrialized world? That is a consequence of this wildly out-of-control spending and all of the things that creates.
I will cite some recent statistics that paint this picture. According to the Fraser Institute in May, Canada is on track for the worst decline in the standard of living in 40 years. That is after nine years of the Prime Minister. Worse still, Canada has the worst growth in income per capita than at any time under any prime minister since the 1930s.
In fact, while our friends to the south in the United States have seen their GDP per capita increase by 8% since 2019, Canada is pedalling backward. We have seen a decline of 2%. We are the basement of the G7; we are the worst. Business investment in our economy is down. Productivity is down. This is quantified at $20,000 less per person than in the United States. I could go on because there are numerous recent figures. Canada has the worst performing economy in the G7 and the OECD, all because spending and taxes are chasing away private sector investment from our economy.
There is another point we as parliamentarians should consider, which is that all the money being spent is the tax money of Canadians. It is very disrespectful to Canadians, who work very hard and who are smart and good people, when governments like these Liberal governments spend money beyond their means. That is the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians they are spending. Canadians work hard for that money, and they do not want to see it being wasted on Liberal-connected consultants such as McKinsey, on Liberal-connected insiders and on scandal after scandal.
On top of these tax increases, the mortgage increases, groceries, home heating and all of the other cost of living aspects they are faced with, this is just another reason why hard work does not pay in Canada after nine years of the Prime Minister. All this obese government spending is making it impossible for Canadians to believe they can actually get ahead.
One of the things I hear most often that makes Canadians most upset is that this is a country where it is no longer possible to dream big. My omas and opas came from the Netherlands after World War II, and Opa Muys worked as part of the Dutch resistance to fight the Nazis. They had nothing in their pockets and came to Canada seeking hope, opportunity and freedom. At that time, as in the history of Canada up to nine years ago, it did not matter where one came from; it mattered where one was going. It did not matter if one came here with nothing. It mattered that one could work hard, save up, buy a home, start a family and succeed in Canada. However, after nine years of the Prime Minister, it is no longer possible to dream big. People are quite upset about that.
It does not have to be this way in Canada. We have everything the world wants: LNG, critical minerals, nuclear expertise, manufacturing expertise and smart, good people. The government has squandered those advantages with reckless spending, reckless taxes and regulation that is driving private sector investment out of Canada to other countries.
The good news is that hope is on the way. Only common-sense Conservatives, under the leadership of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, have a plan to bring home the country we know and love. We have all the advantages. We can succeed in Canada when the next common-sense Conservative government rolls up our sleeves and gets to work. We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
That is why Conservatives will be voting against these estimates this evening. Canadians deserve much better. Now let us bring it home.
1374 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit the member's riding, and there are many great places there. On the subject of health care, over the years of the Harper government, we saw increases to health care spending during that tenure, and health care is important. I know this very personally and directly.
My father had heart surgery five or six weeks ago. There were some complications, and he spent a number of weeks in hospital recovering. My mom was a nurse in the hospital system in Hamilton for 50 years, so we absolutely support health care. What is important for health care is a strong economy that generates the revenue so that we can actually afford to invest in health care.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:50:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know that Conservatives often have trouble understanding that the world changes and things evolve over time.
I would answer the member's question by saying this: Our government has paid a lot of attention to refocusing government spending, which amounts to a refocusing of $15.8 billion in spending by 2027-28. That is a pretty significant amount of refocused government spending, which I think we can all agree is a good thing. It is good, prudent fiscal management to look at how the government is spending its money and to ensure that we are refocusing those funds in areas where we can get better results for Canadians. That should be acknowledged by all parties as a positive thing.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
