44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 17, 2023 11:00AM
- Apr/17/23 1:55:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, the member said that Canada was “a once prosperous nation”. Is this to suggest that Canada is no longer a prosperous country? If that is what the member is suggesting, to whom is she comparing us? Would she say we are more or less prosperous than the United States, for example?
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 3:59:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we are just following a lengthy point of privilege on the use of that word in the House. The member should apologize for using it.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 4:43:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I recognize that the member has spoken at great length about our armed forces and the supports they need, and I appreciate the intervention today, but I would like to ask her a question that relates more to her riding specifically.
This budget has a lot in it for electrifying the grid throughout Canada and is about preparing for the future of electric vehicles. No riding in this country, at least currently, stands to gain more from that than her riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington. In fact, she was there in the summer when Umicore announced that it was going to be building the largest battery manufacturing plant in North America in her riding.
This budget has a lot in it to advance Canada and push us in the direction of that evolution. I am curious if she can at least comment on whether she thinks moving in the direction of electrification and supporting industries linked to the $1.5-billion manufacturing plant in her riding are a good idea.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:05:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
It is an honour to rise today to speak to this budget bill, which is a very important budget. I have been sitting here for quite some time listening to Conservatives routinely talk about the government spending too much money, but then the same speakers in the same speeches talk about all the places where we should be spending more money. I am getting mixed statements coming from the other side of the House on what we should be doing. Nonetheless, I would like to address some of the points I have heard today.
First, I am going to start with the issue of the debt and deficit we have in Canada. There is no doubt that we are still coming down off of the debt and deficits that were taken on during the pandemic to support Canadians. It is a public policy that we decided on in this country, as most OECD countries did, if not all to at least some degree, to take care of Canadians, our constituents and residents, during the pandemic. That is exactly what we did. We ensured they had the supports they needed.
We are obviously coming down off of that. The deficits are getting smaller as we move away from and put the pandemic behind us, but it should be said that, in comparison to other countries, when we compare the inflationary impacts of Canada to the United States, for example, the United States is seeing much steeper inflation, especially as it relates to items such as groceries, which the Conservatives always want to bring up.
I am not saying all of this because I am trying to say we should not be worried about inflation. We should, and it something that we do need to tackle. What I am saying is that inflation has been happening globally. It is something that the world is experiencing. Yes, there is a lot of credit to the argument that it had to do with the supports that went out. It is not due exclusively to that, but, globally speaking, when we look at that, we can draw a correlation to it. However, we should not suggest that inflation in Canada is happening in isolation from the rest of the world or, more importantly, that we would have had the ability to control inflation in isolation from the rest of the world, especially when we consider how globalized our economy is.
We have more trade agreements with other countries than any other country in the world. What does that mean? That means that, when we build things, things are flying across the border. I will give a perfect example. I do not know if members know this, but 80% of the nylon that goes into airbags comes from the Invista plant in my riding of Kingston and the Islands. It makes the nylon, and that nylon will probably travel somewhere to the United States where it is made into the fabric. It then maybe goes somewhere in Mexico through the NAFTA agreement to be fabricated into the airbag, then it probably passes to another country to create the airbag that goes into the steering wheel, and from there the process continues.
My point is that we are a globalized country that has significant trade with many different countries. The unfortunate reality of that is that inflationary impacts are not something we can control in isolation from the rest of the world. If we tried to take an inverted approach and only focused within Canada, saying we will do things without the rest of the world, we would be left behind. As a matter of fact, if we look at the United States and Donald Trump's approach when he was president, we see that he took that approach, and he was unsuccessful in doing it because of that globalization, and it still saw more inflation than Canada did.
I respect the argument because it is a great talking point. It points the blame at somebody, but the reality is that, when Conservatives point the finger at this government to say it has caused all of the inflation in this country, it is ludicrous. It just does not make sense, and it is unfair.
Having said all of that, it is also worth pointing out that, despite the challenging times that the world is seeing right now, Canada continues to have the lowest deficit in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Why is that important?
It means that, as our economy is growing, and as we are seeing new industries and we are expanding, we are able to keep that deficit in check, relatively speaking, against other countries. Also, very important is the fact that Canada continues to maintain a AAA credit rating.
We should all be concerned about the inflation we are seeing throughout the world. We should certainly be concerned about how it is impacting Canadians here in Canada, but to suggest, for a second, that it is something that we could control while also, at the same time, engaging in the globalization and the global trade that we do, is just wrong. It does not make sense, and any economist would tell us that. It is extremely disingenuous when we hear from the opposition that that is the case.
I also find it absolutely remarkable, and I have said this a number of times, that if people believe that the Prime Minister of Canada, whom the official opposition is very critical of on a daily basis, is responsible for inflation in our country, then they would somehow have to also accept the fact that he is responsible for inflation throughout the world.
To my Conservative colleagues, I would say that, for somebody they do not have a lot of faith in to do anything, to suddenly be giving that individual credit for affecting global inflation is truly a remarkable feat. They cannot have it both ways, despite the fact that Conservatives would like to do that.
The other falsehood or talking point we continually hear from Conservatives, and I would like to take the opportunity to try to once again set the record straight, as I am broken record, and I have been saying this for five or six years, respects the carbon tax, or what we, and I, like to call a price on pollution. I will explain why that is in a second. If the term of the day is “carbon tax”, I am happy to entertain the discussion.
What Conservatives always leave out when they are talking about that, every single time, is the fact that there is a rebate. Although the price on pollution might triple by 2030, and not a couple of days ago, as the Conservative rhetoric would like people to believe, although that may be increasing, and it does increase every year, so too does the rebate. The rebate is reflective of how much people are paying and what they are paying on that price on pollution, or that carbon tax.
That is important because of my reason why I prefer to call it a price on pollution as opposed to a carbon tax. A tax is something that is intended to be collected into general revenues and then used for supports, income redistribution to support those in particular hardships who need it at various times, and that is not what this levy does. It takes the money and then returns that money to Canadians. It is the exact same amount. Whether one made $1 million dollars last year or $10,000, we all got the same amount based on the number of people in our family, in our households.
Now, a very valid question would be why we would even bother doing that if we are giving the money back. I think it is actually a good question, and a lot of people ask that. There is a very simple explanation for it. Economists throughout the world resoundingly agree that, when a price is put on something, it changes the behaviour in the marketplace. It incentivizes people to make different choices.
If people are making very environmentally friendly choices and they are paying just a little into that price on pollution, they stand to gain more back than they put in. That is an incentive to incentivize people to make different decisions as it relates to the choices they are making when they are making purchases.
Those are two very important things that I wanted to bring up in this debate, because I think they are germane based on the discussion I have heard thus far. I will certainly be supporting this budget. This is a budget that respects the circumstances we are in and that we have just come out of, and it is a budget that looks towards the future to invest in people and in businesses throughout our country.
1514 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:15:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I am so glad that I was asked it.
The reality is that if our economy continues to grow, and grow at a faster pace, which it is through immigration, through investing in people and businesses, then we are taking on debt and our net benefit, our net bottom line, is actually ahead. That is why Conservatives have done it. That is why Liberals have done it. That is why, out of the last 16 budgets introduced by Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney, only two ran surpluses. Every other run ran a deficit, because they all understood the economics would be the exact same. I guarantee the member that if the Conservatives end up on this side of the House, they will continue to do the exact same thing.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:17:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is another great question.
I appreciate it, but I do not think the future is in carbon capture. However, I do know that we have a limited runway in front of us to protect our environment for my children, the member's children and all members' children and grandchildren. We have to throw everything at the problem that we possibly can at this point in my opinion.
So, if investing in carbon capture is not the best solution, I would agree, is it a solution that we can use at least in the interim? Possibly, and I want to see if that will materialize. I want to see if it is a possibility. At the end of the day, of course, I do not want to be capturing carbon forever. I do not want that to be the solution. I want to move away from the problem of even having to capture the carbon in the first place.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:18:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is an interesting point that NDP members always bring up. They say we are investing in fossil fuel subsidies. However, no, the subsidies have actually been going down. What we have been investing in, which makes it look like they have been going up, is dealing with things like orphan wells.
We should not be in a position where previous companies that have gone out of business left wells behind for society to deal with, but the reality is that those wells are there and we have to deal with them. When the NDP talks about our increase in subsidies, they are adding into that calculation money used for dealing with orphan wells, and I would submit that it is not a subsidy. This is something that we need to do as a society because, as a society, we allowed companies to not deal with them effectively themselves when they should have.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
