SoVote

Jun/7/22 10:34:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. Here is the problem: The more we see the Liberals buy NDP policy like that, which is big government, big spend and a few people getting a few cheques here and there, the worse off Canadians are. Canadians are much worse off now than they were six years ago. The Liberal-NDP plan is to spend, spend, spend on big government, and tax, tax, tax, and maybe throw a cheque here or there to a few people. It is not working. Conservatives believe Canadians need more money in their pockets, less taxes, less spending and less big government to unleash the power of entrepreneurs, of workers, of labour and of our natural resources. That is how we create economic opportunity, but right now we would like to see taxes decreased at the pump for Canadians.

144 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

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

Jun/7/22 10:35:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the excellent work of the Leader of the Opposition, who today made a passionate plea on behalf of Canadians who are struggling and having a hard time making ends meet. By moving this motion today, the Leader of the Opposition clearly showed her support for Canadians, families, young people, workers, seniors and everyone affected by the skyrocketing cost of living. Inflation is going through the roof. The cost of everything is rising more than it has in years. Take, for example, the cost of food, which has gone up about 10% over the past year. That means, on average, the cost of some grocery items has gone up by 20%, 25% or even 30%. Unfortunately, those items are often the ones people need the most. We have not seen prices go up like this since 1981. The motion that the official opposition brought today is eminently sensible. It calls on the government to listen to Canadians for once and to set partisanship and the Prime Minister's vindictiveness aside in order to do what is right: provide a little relief to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. Over the past few days, the Prime Minister and his ministers, including the Minister of Finance, have all demonstrated a total lack of compassion for what Canadians are going through. We have presented quite a few proposals, all of them just and sincere, to make things more manageable for people. Unfortunately, the government chose to say no to the Conservatives' proposals every time. What worries me is that the Prime Minister's attitude suggests he said no to the Conservatives because these good ideas were coming from the official opposition and the Conservatives. He wanted to punish the Conservatives by rejecting their ideas, which included lowering the gas tax and cancelling the carbon tax hike. Those were logical, eminently sensible proposals. However, by doing that, the Prime Minister punished Canadians instead. He prevented Canadians from enjoying a bit of a break. He did not hurt the Conservatives, he hurt Canadian families, young Canadians, seniors and workers. That is the reality. Today, we are giving him the chance to make amends. That is something he can do. We have moved a very sensible motion that the government could support to show a bit of compassion to Canadians. It is his last chance to do so, since this is the last opposition day. This is the last chance a member can move a motion in the House calling on the government to act now to provide some relief for Canadians. Based on what we have heard so far, this likely will not come from the Liberal benches. The Liberals truly need to come down to earth and get in touch with the reality of Canadians. During question period, we call them out on the increased cost of living, because everything is going up. The price of gas is $2.23 or $2.32 a litre in some places in the country. It is crazy. When we ask them questions about that, the Liberals say that in their budget they lowered child care costs for families, brought in an expensive dental care program, and so on. These are all sorts of things that are likely connected to the coalition agreement the Liberal government made with the NDP, but none of them will do anything at all to help families that are suffering. I had the opportunity to speak with some people from ORAPE, a food bank in my riding. Over the last few weeks, demand has gone up 10%. More and more people cannot make ends meet and are urgently going to the food bank so they can get a bit of food and make it until the next cheque, because everything costs more. Workers are telling us that they can no longer afford the gas they need to get to work. Other parents are telling us that they can no longer afford to drive their kids to activities and that they are having to make choices: buy a bit more meat for dinner, or take the kids to a few more activities. This is Canada, in 2022, and families are being forced to make these kinds of choices. If someone had asked me last year if I thought this was possible, I would have said no. Today, this is the reality that many Canadians face. When we hear the answers from the Prime Minister and ministers, including the Minister of Finance, it is as though none of this exists. They think that inflation is global. It is all over the place, and according to them, Canada is doing a little bit better than everywhere else. However, looking at the numbers, we see that this is because inflation in Canada is not calculated the same way as it is in other countries. We are being told that everything is fine, that Canada is doing better than other countries and that this will continue to be the case. That kind of answer offers absolutely no help to families and the people who are struggling to make ends meet and are forced to make tough choices. I would remind members that 25% of Canadians have been forced to make tough choices like buying less food to make ends meet, and that 40% of families and Canadians earning less than $50,000 a year are going hungry. When I say “families”, I am not just talking about families with children; I am talking about all kinds of families. However, when we tell the Prime Minister these things, we are told to look at the latest budget and all the measures that will be introduced several weeks or months from now. We are told to look at the decisions that were made to deliver a budget that clearly proves that this government failed to see the current crisis on the horizon. There is absolutely nothing in the most recent budget to help families now, to help them deal with the crisis of high gas prices, to help people make ends meet. The budget includes a lot of spending for later, but the crisis is happening right now. Are we going to ask people to keep tightening their belts, to not eat, to make hard choices and not send their children to their activities until these measures are implemented several years down the road? That is unacceptable. We cannot tolerate it. We cannot accept the government acting this way. That is why we have introduced an eminently sensible motion that calls on the government to temporarily reduce the tax on gas and diesel and give Canadians a break. The price at the pump right now is $2.32 a litre. In addition, we are calling on the government to scrap the carbon tax increase. They keep telling us that the carbon tax will be given back to families. Until those families receive a cheque, which will not be for the exact amount they paid, they need to put food on the table. That cheque will not give them any. We are also asking the government to eliminate the punitive measures at airports to help the tourism industry and our small businesses across our regions. That will spur economic activity and put more money in people's pockets. That is the reality. We have been proposing these measures since January. The various measures included in this motion were presented to the government previously. Each time, the Prime Minister said no. He said no to Canadians in need, to the most disadvantaged Canadians. However, more and more Canadians in the middle class, who are working very hard to stay there, are also finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. That is why today we are appealing to the government, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. We are asking them to support our motion, which will give Canadians a bit of a break, something they currently need. I believe it is the right thing to do. We must avoid partisanship and saying no to the Conservatives simply because it is a Conservative motion. It is not a Conservative motion, it is a common sense motion for Canadians.

1378 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/7/22 11:37:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot for that excellent speech. I have here the Conservatives' opposition day motion. The motion is quite detailed and long. It includes all their failed initiatives from this parliamentary session. For their sake, I am glad it all fits on a letter-sized page. It includes a number of whereases that are hard to argue with, especially the ones about the high cost of living. That is a simple fact. We know inflation has gone up and the price of goods has gone up. The whereases are fine. Things are off to a good start. For example, we know the price of gas is over two dollars. We are aware of that. People in my riding are worried about it. The same goes for the price of food, which has gone up over 9%. Other goods have gone up even more. We know that. The motion also says that heightened inflation is projected to persist longer than was reasonably believed a while ago. Obviously, economic projections are made with the best information available at the time, and nobody predicted the war in Ukraine. The point is, it is true that the cost of living is higher and will remain higher for some time. Based on the solutions offered in the motion, however, it is clear that, although they identified the symptoms of inflation correctly, the Conservatives do not understand the causes. They did not do their homework, and the facts cannot lie. Facts can be checked. The Conservatives are laughing, but they will learn. The facts show that household demand has continued to increase, but it is not much higher than it would have been without the pandemic. Habits have changed and people are consuming less services and more goods, which has led to supply chain issues. This is true in Canada, it is true in Quebec and, because we cannot ignore the rest of the world, it is true in the majority of other developed countries. On top of that is the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine has most certainly had an effect on supply chains, an effect that is still present today, for example, on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Russia is using supplies of grain, food and fuel as a weapon of mass destruction, which has made food prices here skyrocket. This weapon is also being used to make developing countries suffer because they are being held hostage. This is very real. If we look at the figures, we can see that 70% of the factors driving the price increases are what we call supply-side factors. Neither we nor the Bank of Canada have any influence over these factors. That is our economic reality. It is unpleasant, hence all the grandstanding we are seeing, but that is our economic reality. The Conservative motion proposes solutions to all these supply shock problems. The first solution is to end all federal restrictions on travel, masks and so on. There are not many federal restrictions left, but a few still remain. That is already out of touch. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health, and last week we heard from Dr. MacDonald, a professor at Dalhousie University who specializes in pediatrics and infectious diseases. I asked her if she thought that politicians should stop meddling in health measures and including specific health measures in motions in Parliament. She replied that she agreed, that it did not make any sense. She said that parliamentarians should stop dictating health measures and that these decisions should be made by public health authorities. This is true of the Conservatives' motions, but it is also true of the Liberals, who may be using the health measures for political purposes. This has to stop. That is one reason this motion is problematic. It is not the Conservatives' job to dictate health measures in a motion. There is also the cost of living. We know that the cost of living is going up. The Conservatives are saying that we need to do something about it and that they will propose something smart. Since March 2022, the solution of the motion's sponsor, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, has been to support the member for Carleton in the leadership race. We know they are popular. They are saying that what they will do, since everyone is suffering, is fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. What a brilliant idea, as if firing the Governor of the Bank of Canada is going to help people in Mirabel and Beauce, or our farmers. They want to fire the leader of one of the most credible central banks in the world when 70% of inflation is not his responsibility. As for the other 30%, the Conservatives who said he was not taking action are now complaining because he is taking action by raising interest rates. The last time a party or a government was irresponsible enough to propose such a thing was in 1961, when Prime Minister Flemming, who was a Conservative, shockingly enough, said he was going to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, James Elliott Coyne. What happened? The government did it by passing legislation, because it was illegal. However, the Senate slammed the door on their faces. Things must be going badly if the Senate is giving lessons on democracy. The Senate told the government that the head of a central bank cannot be fired. Nevertheless, that is where today's Conservatives are headed under the member for Carleton. They are going to be given a lesson on democracy by the Senate. Lucky them. There are solutions, and we have proposed some. The first is to tax oil companies in order to fund our public services and launch assistance programs. I am sure the Conservatives will say this is a Bloc fantasy. There is only one entity in the world that is proposing to abolish gas taxes, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada. However, on May 26, the U.K. proposed a 25% windfall tax that is expected to bring in $6 billion U.S. I did not make this up; their Conservative friends in Britain proposed it. On June 4, the Biden administration suggested a similar tax, which is now being studied. India is also thinking about this. How amazing to think that India is a step ahead of the Conservatives. The Conservatives' solution is to lower taxes. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot said, the oil companies are going to lie low for a few weeks, like they did in Alberta. Then, once the public relations crisis is over, they will raise prices. They know full well that people are not going to run out and buy electric vehicles tomorrow morning, and that they will have to keep filling up their tanks. The Conservative motion will not help farmers in the member for Beauce's riding, I can promise him that. What should we do instead? First, we need to increase seniors' purchasing power. Where in the motion is the increase to the federal pension for seniors? Nowhere. There needs to be a program to support the people who are most affected, such as farmers, who cannot buy a Tesla combine. Where is the targeted program for them? Nowhere. There needs to be a program to help taxi drivers, including Uber drivers. Where is that program in the Conservative motion? Nowhere. We need to address the labour shortage. There was nothing in the budget tabled by the Liberals, who are no better. Where in the Conservative motion are the solutions to the labour shortage? Nowhere. We are talking about real people who are being affected by these higher prices. Where is the proposal for increasing the GST rebate and issuing cheques more frequently every month? It is nowhere to be found, either from the government or from the Conservatives. We asked that fertilizers that had been ordered and paid for before the crisis in Ukraine started be cleared for delivery. That is not in the motion, although we do support the part about the tariffs on fertilizer. It just goes to show that there is always a little light in the darkness. Where is the Conservatives' proposal for fixing social housing? We need 60,000 units in Montreal just to start getting back on track. Where is the Conservatives' proposal for sending that money to Quebec, since the Liberals think sending money to Quebec is even harder than building housing? Nowhere. Where is the money for real housing, for real families who are on a real budget, with real children who go to real schools? Rather than helping people, the Conservatives are fixating on the governor of the central bank. Where is the tax credit for experienced workers in our supply chains? It is nowhere to be found in the Conservative motion. Where is the Conservatives' proposal for handing over control of the temporary foreign worker program to Quebec so that farmers in Oka, Mirabel or Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines get the people they need, so that the process is efficient and there is no need to conduct the same labour market impact assessment twice? Nowhere. Where is their aerospace policy that will help us become more efficient at research and development, seeing as Canada is the only country with such a large industry and no aerospace policy? Nowhere. The Liberals will tell us that they gave $800 million to Bell Textron. We know that, and we are happy about it. However, Canada still has no policy. This Conservative motion is devoid of substance. As for the Liberals, they will do what they always do, which is stand up and tell us that they have increased family benefits indexed to inflation. However, indexation is always one year behind, and people are living with 6% to 7% inflation right now. There are solutions out there, and we have proposed some, but they are nowhere to be found in this motion.

1690 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Adam Chambers

Jun/7/22 1:52:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, inflation is a global problem, but guess what? All of the countries where inflation is a problem are countries that did the exact same economic, monetary and fiscal policy expansion that we have seen, and that is why there is an inflation problem. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

51 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 5:36:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the end of every recession, we see a very similar pattern where we have a shortage of material and a shortage of labour and supply chains are disrupted, yet what we are debating today is looking at some very piecemeal measures to try to get Canadians back on their feet, including cutting GST on gasoline purchases. We saw Prime Minister Harper, at the time, cut the GST and that did nothing for economic growth. Could the hon. member talk about solving complex problems with simple answers versus solving complex problems with complex answers?

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 83 - Jun/7/22

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Jun/7/22 8:05:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to the main estimates for 2022-23. I want to start by talking a bit about climate change and the importance of the government taking a leadership role in charting an economic path from where we are today to where we need to be, both in order to lower emissions and to try to avert the worst of what is coming with climate change in the climate crisis. That continues to be, or must be, the priority. I am not always convinced that it is the priority that it needs to be around here, but it must be a priority. That economic course is important, not only to mitigate the economic and the very real human effects that climate change will bring, but also because it is about securing a prosperous future for Canadians in an economy that is changing. If we look around the world, we see a lot of countries that are accepting the reality of climate change and trying to transition their economies away from such a heavy reliance on fossil fuels. We have seen the importance of that from a climate change point of view, but recently we have seen the importance of trying to transition away from fossil fuels from a defence and security point of view too. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has shown just how fragile the world economy is in the face of its reliance on fossil fuels. Therefore, we are trying to develop energy alternatives that are closer to home, and we are fortunate in Canada to have many ways that we can do that and many resources that can enable a transition away from such heavy reliance on fossil fuels. There is certainly more than one reason, and I do not even pretend to have captured them all. With regard to the government's spending plan, what we saw in the budget was a commitment, first of all, of about $2.6 billion for carbon capture and sequestration. That is a bad bet, not only in terms of the success of the technology at scale, which many experts have called into question, but also in terms of emissions reductions as well. It is just not where we should be spending the lion's share of public funds that are meant to transition the economy away from reliance on carbon. In fact, it is designed to not be transitioning away from reliance on carbon; it is meant to find ways to perpetuate that reliance, which is still a form of climate change denial, and it is going to do a fair bit of harm. We saw already in the budget that the government has not understood the severity of the crisis. I do not think the government is at a place where it is going to invest in the right options. It was very disappointing to see that, particularly in the context of a government that had committed to reduce fossil fuel subsidies and not increase them. That is one area of government spending in respect to climate that is important to highlight, and I want Canadians to know that the government is making a serious mistake in that respect. With respect to the budget still, the Liberals want to land investment in renewable energy in the Infrastructure Bank, which means they want to capitalize the bank for a lot of renewable energy projects. That is what they say. However, part of the issue is that in so doing, they are handing it off to an organization that has a very bad track record so far on delivering projects. It does not give us a lot of hope to know that the Infrastructure Bank is on the case. It has not delivered a lot of projects. To the extent that its successful projects list has increased—and I am sure somebody will want to quote some high numbers at me later—it has largely been around bus purchasing. That is great and is an important part of it, but we do not need an Infrastructure Bank and we do not need to pay former Liberals high salaries in order to figure out how to source electric buses. This is something that we already know how to do. It is something municipalities were doing before the Infrastructure Bank, thanks very much, and it is something that they could continue to do without the Infrastructure Bank. As well, perhaps we could do it more effectively if we did not have to go through another layer of administration and pay the salaries of government cronies over at the Infrastructure Bank, if I am being honest about what I think about it. There is another intentional or unintentional consequence of running that funding through the Infrastructure Bank, although I would impress upon colleagues again that there is not a lot of evidence that it is worth it, because the Infrastructure Bank is not so great at delivering projects on time and on budget. The other consequence is that those projects that may have appeared in an estimate—projects that might have appeared somewhere here on the floor of the House of Commons to give parliamentarians and, through their representatives, Canadians, an opportunity to weigh in on the key nation-building projects that ought to be a part of our response to climate change and drive our transition to a low-carbon economy—will not grace the floor of the House. Instead, that money will be set aside at some point, perhaps in estimates one time, and then those debates will be happening internally at the Infrastructure Bank. Municipal governments will be talking to the Infrastructure Bank, not our duly elected government—or parliamentarians, for that matter. I think there is a real loss of democratic involvement in the way that the government is projecting the delivery of those funds, and it is a mistake. I think of my colleague from Manitoba, who represents the riding of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski and has done some great work and presented a private member's bill to try to change the nature of the Infrastructure Bank, which is a good thing. However, that work is not done. That bill has not passed. The Infrastructure Bank remains largely as it was originally set up by the Liberals and is not doing the job that I think was advertised in the 2015 election when the government initially ran on the idea of having an infrastructure bank. If we are going to successfully transition the economy to a lower-carbon economy, that is also an opportunity to engage Canadians who are wondering a lot about their future right now, wondering a lot about how they are going to afford a home, how they are going to get the education they need to get a job that is actually out there in the market. We hear a lot from employers right now, who are saying they cannot find qualified people to do the jobs that they need done in order for their businesses to succeed, in order for their customers here in Canada and abroad to get the products and the services that they want. As we think about serious public investment in the economy to respond to climate change, I think we should also have a process that brings more Canadians into that conversation and helps them get some direction over the kinds of employment that we are going to see and the pathways to that employment as well. Running the lion's share of the funding for new renewable infrastructure projects through the Infrastructure Bank is a real missed opportunity to foster that kind of engagement and participation on the part of Canadians. There is another major spend by government that is not in the estimates, and that is the recent loan guarantee of $10 billion for the TMX pipeline, in addition to what had already been committed. I do not think anyone should kid themselves: It is an expenditure. It is a commitment of public funds above and beyond what had already been budgeted, which was around $15 billion or maybe a little bit more. This is another $10 billion. We are getting close to the $30-billion mark, for those who are keeping track, and because that happened through the Canada Account of Export Development Canada, it does not appear on the books here. That is a decision that cabinet got to make off in the corner, as it did when it initially purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline. When we think about the Mackenzie pipeline debates of the 1950s and what a watershed moment that was for the country and for Parliament, this is a real disappointment. I think that is an understatement. I am feeling very parliamentary at the moment. It is disappointing that the government chose to fund that project in that way for all sorts of reasons. It is disappointing because it is the wrong project at the wrong time and it does not take us in the right direction in terms of the economy for the future, but it is also disappointing because it circumvented this place. We do talk a lot about pipelines in this place. I have my own views on that and I have been pretty open about that. People can search the record in terms of what I think about pipelines. I have probably given enough that people can probably read the tea leaves here already. I know others disagree, and that is fine. Parliament is a place where disagreement comes to live. If we are doing our jobs well, hopefully we can tackle some of those real disagreements and we can find some common ground. On the things that we cannot find common ground, we cannot. At the very least, something like the federal government buying an existing pipeline and committing close to $30 billion, certainly $25 billion, to get the thing built is a major national undertaking, whether I agree with it or not, and whether others like it or not. It would be outrageous for someone to claim that is not a major national expense and that it will not have major national implications down the road. The government could have tried to fund it through estimates, but it did not. It decided to circumvent Parliament instead and make that decision on its own. I think how it chose to make that decision was wrong, independently of the fact that I think the decision was wrong. Why was TMX even up for sale? It was not just the existing pipeline, but the projected future pipeline. It was because a large company in the oil and gas sector, which is very good at building pipelines, decided it was a loser. If it thought it was going to make money on that thing, it would have hung onto it. The company decided it was going to lose a lot of money, so it put the pipeline up for sale. Who came knocking? The federal government. It was the government that ran on getting serious about tackling the climate crisis. A government that has since many times repeated about, but not often actually acted on, reducing fossil fuel subsidies. Just like everyone else, we are reading in the media about where this project is headed and the massive cost overruns. We know that when the government says it is going to provide loan guarantees, and it is not public funding, then it is a sham because one of two things is going to happen. The project could be a wild success and it would make a lot of money for the private investors who are kicking in cash, with no risk, because the government has already underwritten those loans. In this case there would not be a public expenditure, but there would be a lot of happy private investors. However, in the case where it goes wrong, it would be a public expenditure because the government is going to step in and cover the loans. In that case the private investors are going to walk off scot-free without ever having taken a meaningful risk. To me, that sounds worse than public expenditure. At least if the government had spent the money itself, it would be entitled to the profit and, if it were successful, it would make income off it. However, the government has said the only for sure thing is that it is not going to make a lot of income off that project because, if it is a success, the private investors will walk away with the return. Only if it is a failure, will Canadians have to pay the bill. It is a completely wrong-headed project, but I am glad to take this opportunity to talk about it in the context of the estimates because it is not there and it really ought to have been a parliamentary conversation. I wish we had a better debate about that before the decision was made. In fact, it was announced as a surprise. I remember reading about it on my phone walking up to the Hill one morning, that the government had decided to do this. It is quite a disappointment. I say that by way of trying to remind people of the importance and the significance this place can have and sometimes does have. These kinds of circuitous funding routes are ways that government, the executive, minimizes the role of this place and keeps important decision-making and important national conversations away from this place. We have taken up the question of the TMX pipeline. I do not just mean the NDP. I mean in this place, we have heard about it from all sides of the House in various ways during question period. However, there really ought to have been a time for a better and more focused debate. It should not just be in 35-second snippets during question period that we are trying to make sense of this major decision with import not only for Canada. When we talk about climate change, we have to talk about the global context. That was a decision that actually has import far beyond Canada's own borders. I wanted to raise that as an example of something that is a government expenditure, but is something not in the estimates that really ought to have been in the estimates. I want to talk more generally, having addressed some of the features of the estimates, both in terms of its content and absence, about where I believe government spending and government intervention in the economy has to go. We have seen a lot of big numbers announced from the government. Unfortunately, too often this is a government that conflates spending announcements with real action. New Democrats are often accused by others of wanting to spend everybody else's money, and it is always implied that we do this frivolously, which is simply not the case. We are here to talk about how we could invest in Canadians and how we could invest in the country. I would say that we do not think of a return on investment as being solely a financial question. If we pool our resources as Canadians and we find a more efficient way to pay for prescription drugs, or we pool our resources and we make sure that not just my kids but every kid in the country has access to dental care, to me that is a return on investment. In respect of pharmacare, I think there is a financial return that we could realize as Canadians against what we are already paying for prescription drugs. We know a number of studies have been out, and the most small-c conservative estimates on how much we could save is in the order of about $4 billion a year, and this is dated information. We are living in a period of great inflation, and I am sure the numbers have gone up but I bet the differential has not. Back when the PBO reported on pharmacare, he said that Canadians were spending about $24 billion a year on prescription drugs, and one national prescription drug insurance plan would cost about $20 billion. That would be a savings of $4 billion. That would be a very concrete financial return on an investment out of the public purse. We could also measure return on investment in other ways. Government spending to build new housing supply so we could house people who are currently living on the street brings return on investment. It brings return on investment, and that is another one where I would say there is actually a financial component. We know that people who are experiencing homelessness have more frequent interactions with the justice system. They are more likely to end up in jail, and we know that jailing people is expensive. We also know people experiencing homelessness are also more likely to end up in the health system, and not through preventative care, like a typical physical at the doctor's office, but in the emergency room where the issues are more acute and the costs are much higher. That is a return on investment. When we talk about people who are nervous about taking the bus because there are people who have set up their home in the bus shelter, and they do not know what those folks are like, they do not know what state of mind they are in, so they get nervous about taking the bus and say that we need to get these people out of the way. Well, creating a sense of safety in our communities by housing those folks instead of waiting until something goes sideways and the police show up to arrest them is another way we could realize tangible return on investment. That is something we could do together through our governments that no individual could do on their own. As we think about what was required in the pandemic as a response, and as we think about the ongoing and mounting challenge of climate, we have to revisit the conventional wisdom of the last 30 or 40 years around public involvement in the economy and recognize that, if we are going to get to where we need to be, then we need some bold public investment. It should be happening in a way that allows it to be discussed in this place with public deliberation, instead of at the boardroom table at the Infrastructure Bank or at the cabinet table in secret, spending out of the Canada account, instead of doing it transparently here in the estimates. Even if we consider the oil and gas industry, an industry that has had its heyday and now we need to figure how to have a lower carbon economy, that industry in Alberta was built with tons of public investment. That economic engine did not actually happen with the private industry on its own. There were years of publicly funded research and publicly funded infrastructure at the provincial and federal levels that led to that economy being what it became. It is going to take that level of seriousness and public investment to build the economy of the future to provide good-paying jobs and prosperity for Canadians again, which is why it is important that this place get it right when it comes to how we evaluate government spending.

3262 words

All Topics