44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 31, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/31/22 4:54:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, who I know has a dynamic speech members are going to want to hear right after mine.
The member opposite made a comment just now. He said that the more we do now in climate change, the less our kids will have to do when they get older. It is a good comment and a true comment, but it also applies to many other things we do here in government, and that includes fiscal and financial responsibility. It means saying we are going to take responsibility for how we spend our money now so that our kids do not need to make difficult choices of the kind we had to make in the nineties.
I thought I would take a trip down memory lane on what happened in the nineties, because some of these members need to understand exactly what that was like. Even going back into the eighties, I can remember coming out of high school looking for a job, and I and 30 other kids were applying at McDonald's. I remember thinking that would have been a great job, because that was all that was available.
I remember high inflation rates. I remember buying my first house in the nineties and being excited about getting an interest rate of 14%. I was excited at 14%. Now if I cannot lock it in for 3%, I am really upset. How things can change, and how things can change back.
In the nineties we had former finance ministers Ralph Goodale and Paul Martin under Chrétien, who were faced with a situation that was very, very dire. There had been 27 years of unbalanced budgets, 27 years of mismanagement and overspending. All of a sudden we had foreign bankers and bondholders telling this country what we could and could not do. They were basically putting the thumbs to us and saying that we needed to balance our budget or the IMF was going to come in. I know former prime minister Chrétien said that this was not going to happen and took responsibility, and I credit him for doing that.
Those were tough times, and I do not want to see our kids having to make the same decisions. Let us look at the cuts they had to make. When we look back to 1993-94, we see that basically the transfers to the provinces were just stifled. In fact, it took about 15 years to get the amount of money that was cut to health care back to where it was.
I remember times when I had grandparents who were looking for surgery, and all of a sudden there was no surgery. I remember people screaming that we needed more health care funding, but there was no money for it. I can remember people saying that we needed to have more social services, but there was no money for those social services. We did not have it. We had wasted it.
In 1995 The Wall Street Journal called Canada a third world country. That is where we were in 1995. According to Edward Greenspon and Anthony Wilson-Smith's 1996 Double Vision, Jean Chrétien's three priorities in 1993 kept the IMF out of here. That is because he made some really tough decisions. He had to take extreme measures and cut government spending in real terms. He cut as much as we had ever seen since before World War II.
Chrétien got rid of a lot of the grants. He got rid of a lot of the things people took as staples. In fact, he cut the CBC so badly that the president of CBC resigned the next day. That is what can happen when we let spending get out of control. That is what can happen when we do not have a balance in place, and that is what is really concerning about the government at this point in time.
As we go into new spending, there are things I would love to see. I would love to see a dental care program. I think it would be wonderful, if we can afford it. I would love to see a pharmacare program, if we can afford it. You bet I would love to see a national day care program, if we can afford it. What bugs me in this situation is that we possibly could afford it if we did not keep shooting ourselves in the foot.
If we would allow our resource sector to actually do what it does best in the world, we would actually make a difference and be able to pay for a lot of these things. If we let the oil actually get to market, we would have the royalties at the provincial level and the federal level so that we could transition our economy in a way that would not be burdensome to our kids. We would not have to borrow money to do it. We could actually pay cash for it. What an amazing idea: paying cash for something. There is nothing wrong with that.
I was listening to members across the aisle talking about every country being in deficit and having inflation. Who cares? This is Canada. This is what Canada needs to do. Canada has inflation so Canada needs to worry about its inflation. Canada needs to worry about its own spending.
I do not worry about U.S. spending; the U.S. can worry about its spending. I do not worry about European spending; they can worry about their spending. They can let their kids figure out how they are going to pay for it. I would rather to take care of things in my own house here in Canada so I know my kids have a great standard of living, so I know my kids can get surgery when they need it, so I know my kids can get EI and CPP when they need it.
That means we need to be responsible. It means we need to show respect for taxpayer dollars here and now, not 10 years from now, because what I am seeing right now is that fact. We just spend it.
When we see a bank making huge profits of $6 billion or $7 billion, what do we see the coalition government here say? They say that is bad. Where does that money go when they make revenues of $6 billion or $7 billion? It goes to Canadian shareholders. It goes to pension funds. It goes to groups that distribute it back into the economy. What do those people do? They pay taxes. Let us look at what the banks are also doing. They are lending to small businesses, to farmers and to medium-sized enterprises and big companies. They are actually providing the capital for them to operate so they can hire people. That is how capitalism works.
If they want to go to communism, let them ask Venezuela how that works or ask Russia or USSR how that works. It does not work. Let them ask Cuba how it works. It does not work. Big government does not work. The more we can get our fiscal house in order and the more we can take responsibility, make responsible decisions and be proactive in deciding what we are going to do moving forward, the better this country is going to be.
We have a few examples of what happens when the government is not proactive. I will just take the war in Ukraine right now and how ill prepared Canada would be if Russia had decided to come to Canada instead of Ukraine. We are naive. We think that will never happen and that the U.S. would protect us. Really? Ukrainians might have thought the same thing until 2012 when it happened. Then they thought it would never happen again. Well it happened again. People in Poland are certainly second-guessing that right now.
Are we prepared? We are going to buy 88 jets, it sounds like. That is a good thing. We could have bought them eight years ago, though. We would have been prepared then.
They have a habit in the current government of actually waiting to dig a well until we are thirsty. Then it is too late. Can we not be proactive? Can we not do things ahead of time? Can we not anticipate things? Can we not look at things and say, “This is what we need to do”? Can we get beyond just one focus, which is the environment? The environment is important. I am not criticizing that, but what I am saying is that we can do that and do three, four or five or six other things at the same time. They can link together and they can actually work in harmony and, again, leave a better country for our kids.
There are some serious structural problems happening here in Canada. I hear it every day in my meetings with different groups and organizations. There are the vineyards, for example. The wine association people were talking this week about the excise tax escalating. They have repeatedly told the government it is a problem that is driving them out of business and that, if the government drives them out of business, all those small grape producers do not have a home for their grapes in Ontario. The winemakers actually gave notice to the grape producers this week that they will not have a home for those grapes. Therefore, that sector is going to die.
I go to the manufacturing sector and talk to Canadian manufacturers and exporters. They say their costs of production are too high and they cannot compete anymore. They say, “We have all these free trade agreements and all this market access. It is wonderful and I am glad we have it, but if I cannot produce it in Canada what good are they?” Why do we not look at how we get those costs of production down and get the manufacturing to cost?
If we want electric vehicles to be in Canada, then make it an attractive place to build them in Canada and do not chase the manufacturers to the U.S. and other jurisdictions. They should look at Canada and say it will be great building here because we have a good labour force, a good cost of production and market access right around the world. We have a stage that is set to be successful. However, we are missing pieces of that equation, and the current government is not addressing any of those items.
When companies do come here and invest, members might notice a certain characteristic: government subsidization in order to get them to come here. We have to give them money to get them to locate here. Why not give them a good environment to do business in? Why not give them a good educational force? Why not give them the benefits that Canada historically has had all along? We have given up those historical advantages because we have overspent. We do not have anything left to give.
There is a D-Day coming. There is a day when all of a sudden somebody is going to come in and a bondholder is going to drop our rating and we are going to say, “Oh my god, we have to correct things.” Probably our kids will have to make some very difficult choices like the Liberal government in 1993, 1994 and 1995 had to make. We will see health care cuts. We will lose our social benefits programs. That is coming.
We can stop that if we show some responsibility and show some awareness of what our strengths are and take advantage of those strengths and help transition our country into being the next country in the next generation that can be number one throughout the world. Let us quit worrying about everybody else in the world. Let us worry about Canada.
2028 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 5:05:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a great question. Why does the government have to subsidize them to come here in the first place?
Ms. Julie Dabrusin: We didn't.
Mr. Randy Hoback: Yes, we did, Madam Speaker. The Ontario government subsidized it. The federal government subsidized it. What was also promised into the future to get them to locate it here in Canada? Why did we have to do that? Why did we not just say that we have the critical resources and all the things we need to make a great battery here in Canada, plus the labour force, the tax base and infrastructure to do that? We do not have that because it is not developed.
I find it really interesting that the trade minister was in the U.S. talking about electric vehicles when build back better is coming on and her selling point was that we have the critical minerals in Canada. We do, but they are in the ground and the regulations the Liberals have in place will keep them in the ground.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 5:07:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for a great question, and I agree with him 100%. Coming out of a crisis, we need that physical capacity to take the decisions we have to make. We had that fiscal capacity because we balanced our budgets in 1993, 1994 and 1995 and we maintained budgets, so that in 2008 when the great recession hit Stephen Harper had a buffer zone so he could spend money, keep the economy going and then balance the budget again in 2015.
The current government needs a plan to balance its budget now so that, if we need to help people out as they come out of the crisis, we can help them. If we want to get to a green environment I am saying let us move there if that is where the world is going to go, but let us not take and throw away all the benefits we have right now that could pay for that changeover. Why not embrace them, take the royalties from oil and critical minerals, and use them to plan accordingly and build up our green energy infrastructure?
I find it interesting that we would subsidize a car but not tell people how they are going to plug it in. We do not tell them where they are going to have to plug it in. We do not tell them that if they have a condo built in the 1970s there is no power grid that they can plug in to. Those are the things we need to solve and we need the resources—
265 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 5:09:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a few points. First of all, I do not believe in picking winners and losers, so as far as the corporations getting subsidized by the federal government goes, we should be getting out of that. I agree with him on that. As for their paying dividends, that is a good thing. Their making profit, that is a good thing. To have a low tax rate so they are located here, that is a good thing.
I will say that the NDP joined this coalition, like lots of provincial NDP parties when they form government, but they now have to show responsibility. What they say and what they do means something because they are now a part of government. When they are in opposition—
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
