44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 18, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/18/23 2:02:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, cancer is a life-altering experience, which, unfortunately, too many Canadians have gone through. It remains the leading cause of death in Canada. In April, the Canadian Cancer Society runs the daffodil campaign. Let us not forget to recognize and support the society's admirable work for patients, survivors and loved ones affected by cancer.
We in this place have joined forces with the Canadian Cancer Society through an all-party parliamentary caucus so that parliamentarians can better address this disease, which affects one out of every four Canadians. Many of my Conservative colleagues are excited to be part of this caucus and will firmly support the society's goal to increase access to palliative care across Canada. This is just one example of how we can take further action.
Last, let us thank the many researchers, patients, survivors, donors and volunteers who assist in the fight against cancer and in preventing the disease. Many are here in Ottawa today and we thank them for their efforts. As Canadians, let us work together and make a difference for everyone.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 3:35:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's contributions to the debate today. He specifically mentioned the first-time homebuyer tax-free savings account. That was actually promised in the budget before. Therefore, I have two very simple questions.
When will this so-called tax-free savings account be available for people to use? Where will young people, particularly those who are hit hard by inflation and the cost of living, find the $8,000 they could put into it? I would like the member to explain to his constituents and mine where they are supposed to find that money for a home.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 3:55:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during my time in this place, I served as parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board when I sat on the government side of the House. During my time on this side of the House, I have served in various roles, such as the finance shadow minister. Certainly, I have spent my time on the finance committee and have had the opportunity to grill both former and current Liberal finance ministers.
I mention that because, as we all know, a comment by the former finance minister, before he became known as just another random Liberal, was reported in the media. It was about how budgets are really put together in the current Liberal government, or, I should say, within the Prime Minister's Office. I say the PMO, because it is within the PMO that these things really occur. Bill Morneau stated, “calculations and recommendations from the Ministry of Finance were basically disregarded in favour of winning a popularity contest”. Government by polling is, and has always been, what the always-be-spending Liberal government does.
Let us recap the pattern for a moment. It all began with the Liberals, in 2015, promising small deficits of $9.9 billion in 2016, $9.5 billion in 2017, $5.7 billion in 2018, and a return to a $1-billion surplus in 2019. That Liberal promise to return to a balanced budget in 2019 was cast in stone, as the Prime Minister said at the time. For those in the PMO who may be watching, “cast in stone” means something that cannot be changed, something that is permanent, something that is absolute. Of course, we all know that was a lie, a fabrication.
No doubt some polling was probably done at the time, and focus groups said that some small deficits would be supported, provided there was a firm commitment to return to a balanced budge afterwards, and, voila, there is the Prime Minister avowing a cast-in-stone commitment to return to a balanced budget in 2019. We all know how the Liberal government did not even try to honour the cast-in-stone promise it made to Canadians.
I know that some of my colleagues will say that this is ancient history. They will ask why we are talking about the past instead of the budget that is before the House today.
This is why. Not so long ago, in November, the Liberal government tabled a fiscal update. That was five months ago. In that economic update, the Liberal government told us that Canada would have a balanced budget by 2027.
Only five months later, another Liberal budget has revealed that this was just another lie, something they made up. Seriously, why does the Liberal government keep trying to mislead Canadians and convince them that it intends to balance the budget? Why does it not simply tell the truth and admit that it will never balance the budget and that it does not really think it is necessary? Budgets balance themselves, do they not?
Consider spending for a moment. In 2015, total federal spending for the last year of the previous government was just over $248 billion. In 2019-20, the last year of the Liberal majority government, spending was just over $338 billion. This is a significant increase, with $80 billion in new spending.
That is not taking into account the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, when total federal expenditures reached a record high of $608 billion in the 2020-21 fiscal year.
The Liberals said that last year's budget was a fiscal return to reality. In last year's fiscal return to reality budget, the Liberals proposed total spending of $434.3 billion.
To recap, in the final year of the Liberal majority, the reality was $338 billion. Last year, the Liberals' new normal was $434 billion. That is an increase of $96 billion. Now, in this year's budget, the Liberals are proposing $496.9 billion, but wait; there is more. The budget projects that spending will reach $555.7 billion in 2027-28. This is why I call it the “speNDP-Liberal partnership”, because the outcome of this partnership is an out-of-control, always-be-spending Liberal government.
I know there are members of the government and the fourth party's side of the House who will say, “Who cares? We can afford it.” Here is the thing: This level of spending will soon exceed 16% of Canada's GDP, the highest it has been in three decades. Debt charges rose by 52% in the last five months of the fiscal year, in tandem with interest rate hikes. Last year, the government spent $24.5 billion servicing the debt. Desjardins forecasts that debt charges of $49.8 billion are coming. We are getting to the point where we will spend almost as much servicing debt as we spend on the Canada health transfer.
Think long-term about what $50 billion could do every year if it were not spent servicing debt. That is obviously, and ultimately, the problem with the Liberal government. Much as random Liberal Bill Morneau told us, “calculations and recommendations from the Ministry of Finance were basically disregarded in favour of winning a popularity contest.”
Many economists are now warning that the Prime Minister's “plan to add billions of dollars in new annual spending has some economists worried that Canada is at risk of racking up unsustainable debt—especially if economic growth comes in worse than expected”. Other economists have warned that this ongoing Liberal spending “works against the Bank of Canada’s tightening of monetary policy to combat inflation and risks keeping interest rates higher for longer”.
There is another elephant in the room: our lack of productivity and competitiveness. Consider a Canadian lumber company: “West Fraser’s U.S. lumber production rose 13 per cent last year, while its Canadian output fell 17 per cent.” Other Canadian lumber companies, like Tolko, closed Canadian lumber mills and instead opened up new mills. Where did they do that? They opened them in the United States.
Recently, The Ottawa Citizen reported that “Canadian steel producers are actively trying to reduce climate emissions as well as facing a carbon tax as part of government efforts to fight climate change, but offshore steel producers don’t face the same rules and surcharges. As a result, domestic firms are losing market share to high carbon, offshore steel at an unprecedented rate”. For those who do not know, there is a name for this. This is called “carbon leakage”, which is what happens when industries compete with industries and countries that may have low or no carbon prices. If an industry loses market share to the more polluting competitors, this negatively affects our economy, lowers GDP and does nothing to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
This is the path that the Liberal government and the budget put us on. It is a very dangerous path. As a former Liberal finance minister recently stated, “If Liberals don’t want to face that kind of calamity, then it’s way better to manage the growth of your expenditures and manage your revenue carefully.”
Before I close—
1239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 4:06:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite's raising this issue allows me to finish my speech. I was quoting John Manley, who said, “Otherwise, there's a reckoning coming, and someone is going to have to face it.”
There is all sorts of spending in this budget. There are things we might agree on and lots of things we will disagree on, but I do not think anyone on that side of the House will say that this is a fiscally responsible budget. At some point, as Mr. Manley says, someone has “to manage the growth of...expenditures and manage...revenue carefully”, or, guess what, it is going to be the young people of this country who are going to be saddled with it.
That is the problem we have. We need to start focusing on the priorities of Canadians and only on those things, because we will not have the fiscal room if the economy shifts. We need to remember that this budget actually shows a recession in Q3 and Q4. Let us talk about those issues.
181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 4:08:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when it comes to Alberta, I would speak to Alberta members, but my understanding is that there is agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta for a harmonization agreement that allows for an equal program where there is a set of procedures in place so there is an equal level with what the federal government considers acceptable.
I imagine that, as a member from Quebec, the member would say that is probably the best, because the people closest to the problem should have the most input. I am sure he would argue, from a Quebec standpoint, that Quebec can manage its own house better than Ottawa can.
The second thing is that we had, earlier, a parliamentary secretary come and say that the tax-free savings account for first-time homebuyers is available now. I just checked the Desjardins website.
The tax-free first home savings account does not currently exist.
Perhaps there is at Questrade or whatnot, but I went to RBC and could not see one. It was the same thing with CIBC. The government says it is doing all these things to help people, but it is not doing that. I hope this member can check with Desjardins to confirm, because people are told something is coming, and when it is not there, they lose trust.
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/23 4:10:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is close to my heart. Mayor Mike Goetz originally placed the question to the minister responsible for this particular program, because it does not appear that communities hit hardest will be able to access that. They will be on a level playing field with other communities that will be applying for the adaptation funds, and Mayor Goetz has said that is not appropriate.
Every time I speak to citizens in Merritt or Princeton, I hear they do not feel that either senior-level government, the provincial or federal government, has had their backs. It really takes away from the trust in government, and I have to say that if that is the goal of the government, it is succeeding.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
