44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 21, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the budget implementation bill. The fiscal measures announced in the budget are implemented in part in this massive bill, Bill C-47.
Towards the end of this budget bill, they go completely off topic and decide to refer to Charles III as the King of Canada. Division 31 states the following:
The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Does my colleague think it makes sense to include this in a budget implementation bill? Should we not vote on it separately instead?
For that matter, do we even need this kind of thing in 2023?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, a budget implementation act covers many things that are required immediately. Some of the things that the hon. member mentioned need to be considered and voted upon in the current budget implementation act.
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I just came from Kinngait, a small community of about 1,000 people. That community just suffered a rash of four suicides in a very short amount of time. At the same time, the budget proposes almost $1 billion to persuade indigenous peoples to engage in environmental assessment processes, which the member spoke briefly about.
Indigenous peoples are not getting the benefits they deserve for the resources from their lands that are being exploited. Is the Liberal government saying that it will continue to suppress and oppress indigenous peoples and continue to profit from their lands off indigenous peoples' backs?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to hear about the number of suicides in this small community.
The track record of our government during the last seven and a half years shows how closely we work with the indigenous community. We have involved, consulted and worked with them for the benefit of the entire indigenous community. We have worked to provide them with all the assistance that is required to not only improve their health but also tackle the economic development that is very badly needed.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I will be splitting my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/21/23 10:30:37 a.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the intervention of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
My comments today lead off the comments of His Majesty's loyal opposition on Bill C-47. That is the Liberals' budget implementation bill. The question before us is whether anything in this budget bill will actually be true when we look at the promises of the Liberals compared with the results.
I want to put the record spending in this budget plan into some historical context. I know the Liberals are a little challenged on math sometimes, so please bear with me. I hope they can follow it.
In the federal election of 1968, Pierre Trudeau reassured Canadians that a Liberal government would not raise taxes or increase spending. During the election, he said that the government was not Santa Claus. How did that work out? When Pierre Trudeau became prime minister, real government spending increased from 17% of the GDP to 24.3%. In other words, the federal government's share of the economy rose 42% under Pierre Trudeau. Every single area of federal government spending increased, except defence spending, where Pierre Trudeau cut spending in half as a percentage of the budget. When Pierre Trudeau took office, we spent more on national defence than we did on servicing the country's debt. When he left office in 1984, for every dollar the government spent on defence, we spent $3 on paying the interest on his national debt.
Let us look at this another way. The deficit Pierre Trudeau ran in his last year of office was 8.3% of the GDP. Based on Canada's GDP in 2022, Pierre Trudeau's 8.3% of GDP deficit would be like an annual deficit of $157 billion today. His record was to drive Canada's debt from $262 billion when he became prime minister to $700 billion when he left office. Pierre Trudeau added $438 billion to Canada's debt, almost tripling it. This was from a Liberal leader who said he would not run deficits when he was first elected in 1968 and that the government was no Santa Claus.
I raise this because, as the adage goes, like father like son. By the time Pierre Trudeau left office in 1984, 38¢ of every dollar that the federal government spent was to pay interest on the debt that he had built up. His policies of massive spending led to a rapid rise in interest rates to try to reduce inflation. All that government spending simply made it worse. Interest rates rose to 21%.
Like his father, the current Liberal leader promised Canadians in his first election in 2015 that, even though Canada was running a robust growing economy and had a balanced budget left by the Harper government, he would run modest stimulus deficits. However, in 2019, it would be balanced. The platform that the Liberals all stood on in 2015 said: “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019” and “we will...reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 27 percent”.
Did he have a balanced budget in 2019, as he promised and as his father also promised in his first term? No, he did not: like father like son. The Liberals produced a $20-billion deficit in 2019. Promises were made, and promises were broken.
Did the Liberals reduce their first fiscal anchor of 27% of the GDP? No, they did not. It was 31% in 2019, so another promise was made and broken.
In the new Liberal budget after 2019, there was no longer talk of a balanced budget. The debt-to-GDP ratio was the new fiscal anchor. It would remain the same during the four years of that fiscal plan, even though that meant they would be spending more. We know that at least the promise to spend more and not to balance the budget was true.
We then had an early and unnecessary election in 2021. What did the Liberal platform say then about promises for the country's finances? There was no talk of balanced budgets until perhaps 2050, but the Liberals did promise to drop the debt-to-GDP ratio from 48.5% in 2021-22. We should remember that in 2019, their campaign promise said that, in 2022, the debt-to-GDP ratio would be 31%, not 48%.
What does the bill project for this year? The budget set the cumulative spending for the next five years at a record $3.1 trillion. We should remember that, in the fall, they promised that the budget would be balanced. However, if these numbers are to be believed, and if they did not add more spending in the rest of their term, they would add another $130 billion to the national debt. The national debt would rise to a record $1.3 trillion. The Liberals project that interest on the national debt would rise from $44 billion a year to $50 billion a year in five years. This is if we can believe the interest rate projections in this budget. That $50 billion in interest is $10 billion more than we spend on national defence.
The budget includes $84 billion in new tax credits for businesses over the next five years. The Liberals project that inflation will be 3.5% in 2023 and roughly 2.1% thereafter. For this to happen, inflation would need to drop from 5.5% now to 2% in July and stay there for the next five years. This is not likely. The $3.1 trillion in spending, with massive deficits, would pour gasoline on the inflation fire. Therefore, these projected inflation rates are ridiculous.
In the last year of the Conservative government, federal government spending was $280 billion, with a $1.9-billion surplus. This year, the budget projects $456 billion in spending. That is up $176 billion, or 63%, since the Liberals took office. The fiscal framework projects the government spending to be $543 billion. This is if there is no further spending in the rest of their term. That is $263 billion more than in 2015, representing a 94% increase in spending. The increase alone is almost as much as the entire 2015 budget. Taxes have risen by $282 billion since 2015. We know it is not a revenue problem, because revenue has gone up by 92%.
At the end of the bill's plan, Pierre Trudeau and the son, the current Liberal leader, will have contributed $1.1 trillion to Canada's national debt. Pierre Trudeau always spent more than he promised. After eight years of the Liberals, the son has done the same. Promises were made, and promises were broken. Canadians simply cannot afford any more Trudeaus.
1149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, history is an interesting teacher for us.
I want to point out to the hon. member that when Brian Mulroney took over as prime minister, the national debt was $200 billion. By the time he left, it was $514 billion, and that was without a pandemic. That was without an invasion of Ukraine. It seems that the Conservatives are following the same pattern of loving money more than people, looking at the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Where is the factoring in of the pandemic? Our inflation rate is coming down to pretty low levels compared with the rest of the world. However, where is the factoring in of the difficulties with supply chains and the external influences on our inflation rate?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Mulroney government produced an operating surplus by the second year of its mandate and an operating surplus every year after that. Every prime minister since Pierre Trudeau ran an operating surplus, except for the current Prime Minister.
In terms of pandemics, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that over half the spending done in the pandemic had absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic itself. That is the fiscal irresponsibility of Liberals.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is a mammoth bill. It is over 400 pages long, amends 59 statutes, in addition to amending the Income Tax Regulations, and contains 39 divisions. When he was elected in 2015, the Prime Minister pledged that he would not allow this kind of thing to happen. Almost eight years later, he is doing it again for the umpteenth time. What does my hon. colleague think of this?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is another promise made and broken. The Liberals were never going to do omnibus bills, but every single budget bill they have had has amended acts of Parliament that had nothing to do with the budget. They have done it yet again. Canadians have come to expect they cannot trust anything the Liberal government says, whether it is on the finances or how it is going to operate Parliament.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I appreciate working alongside the member on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I thank him for speaking about campaign promises. I was reflecting, as a fellow member on the fisheries committee, about the campaign promises of the Conservatives, and I am wondering if the member could clarify something.
The Conservatives campaigned on getting open-net fish farms out of the water, yet I am hearing very different discussions happening today. I am wondering if the member can clarify what the Conservative stance is currently on the importance of getting open-net fish farms out of the water. Furthermore, what are his thoughts on the fact that the current budget does not have a commitment to support all those impacted through this very necessary transition?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting on the fisheries committee with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, as well as her thoughtful interventions during the fisheries committee work we do together.
From our perspective, what we do is respect provincial responsibility first of all. Open net-pen farms or aquaculture in Atlantic Canada is a provincial responsibility in licensing. In British Columbia, it is a federal responsibility. The government has lost several cases in the B.C. courts over its handling of it. It committed to consulting with the industry, which it did not do. The fisheries minister previous to this one, whom I happen to have defeated, also promised, when she made the decision to remove the Discovery Islands fisheries, that there would be transition programs for the industry and the employees, and now the current government, of course, is silent on those promises.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you a secret that I am sure you will keep to yourself. I went into politics because I care about keeping the public finances in respectable shape. I am a member of the opposition and, to put it mildly, I have had my work cut out for me when it comes to opposing the government's management of public funds, which has been anything but sound.
I will give a few examples. The debt-to-GDP ratio was already very high at 42.4%. Because of this government's inflationary measures, which are costing all Canadians dearly, the debt-to-GDP ratio, which was 42.4% last year, has now reached 43.5%. The Liberals will surely say that that is not a lot and that it is normal, but we need to be careful. Let us remember what the Minister of Finance herself said in her budget statement in the House in November, just six short months ago. I would remind members that the debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 42.4% to 43.5% this year.
Nevertheless, just six months ago, the finance minister said, and I quote, “let me be very clear. We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline and our deficits must continue to be reduced.” I will talk about that shortly.
She also said, “The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe must [and will] be paid down. This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we will not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.”
Her words are almost lyrical. They are words that I, for one, would have spoken with honour and dignity. However, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, who is second in command in this government and a contender for the top job, as everyone knows, said one thing and did exactly the opposite when the budget was tabled two weeks ago. That is what we are seeing with every number and every word in this omnibus bill that we are debating today.
The promise on the debt-to-GDP ratio has not been kept, and the debt-to-GDP ratio has gone up. The finance minister was so proud about a balanced budget at the economic update. She boasted that the budget would be balanced in five years and that there would even be a $4.5‑billion surplus. That is hogwash, because exactly the opposite is happening. This year, the deficit is more than $40 billion, which is completely unacceptable.
I would remind the House that those folks over there got elected in 2015, eight years ago, on what was admittedly a bold promise. They promised a shift to the left, and they have definitely delivered on that. They promised that if a Liberal government was elected, it would run small, strategic deficits for three years and return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. What happened was the exact opposite. The Liberals have run huge deficits over and over again, and the budget is far from balanced.
Balanced budgets are important. We cannot spend our lives, as individuals and families, perpetually living on credit. Sooner or later, we have to pay off our debts. If we do not pay now, we will have to pay eventually, or our children will be left to pay the price. A deficit leads to a debt, which leads to a bill that we pass on to our children and grandchildren, who will have to pay the price because we are living beyond our means today. Canada's debt is now $1,220,000,000,000. That is a lot of zeros. That is fitting, since there are a lot of zeros on that side of the House. Seriously though, Canada's debt is $1.220 trillion, which works out to $81,000 per family.
Every family now has $80,000 in debt that will be passed on to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who have not even been born yet but who will have to pay it off. Today, we are spending $43.9 billion to service the debt compared to last year, when it was half that, $24.5 billion. That is a huge amount. It is double the budget of the Department of National Defence. I will repeat, this is money being sent to banking institutions to pay for past spending, not for any direct services to Canadians.
It is irresponsible to live beyond our means. Is it any surprise that this is happening, when we know that the leader of this government once said that deficits balance themselves? As far as I can tell, he is the only person on the planet in a position of authority who has made such a silly comment. Deficits do not in fact balance themselves.
The government's money does not grow on trees. The government has no money. The government gets its money from Canadian workers. That is something we must never forget.
Now, about taxes, we know that the carbon tax is going up. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed, this directly affects all families. It costs them more than they get back from the government. The PBO says it could cost the average family between $402 and $847 more.
The Prime Minister and the minister boasted that they had listened to the Liberal caucus, that they had listened to members speaking out on behalf of their constituents. Guess why? They wanted to make sure that the tax hike on alcohol would not be too high. I am not going to judge them for not wanting to raise taxes on alcohol too much. They are within their rights. I just wish these members would show the same concern over the debt, the deficits and the bills we are leaving to our children and great-grandchildren.
We also see this government announcing income tax hikes. The increase amounts to $305 for workers earning an average of $66,000. The Canada pension plan will cost them an additional $255. Employment insurance will cost them another $50.
When we look at the key elements affecting all Canadian families, be it taxes, the deficits or the debt, and we look at the overall numbers, such as the debt-to-GDP ratio, we see that this government has failed to do its duty to ensure responsible government. These people have never had a balanced budget. They have never paid attention to public spending. On the contrary, they continued to spend recklessly.
I want to share an anecdote. There is a section on Facebook called “Memories”. We can open it to see our memories. Facebook then shows us what we did last week or in previous years. This is the time of the year we debate the budget, so, every day, Facebook reminds me of the speeches I made or the questions I asked. The hallmark of this government is that it has no control over spending, it has no idea when it will return to a balanced budget and it always spends without restraint. However, when the Liberals were elected in 2015, they said that they would balance the budget by 2019. They did not do that. Six months ago, the minister projected a return to a balanced budget in five years. That is not happening.
Earlier, my colleague gave a history lesson about the 15th Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, father of the current Prime Minister. I want to talk about what happened next. In 1972, the Liberals won a minority government under Pierre Trudeau. The Liberals struck a deal with the NDP to keep them afloat for a while. This arrangement lasted until 1974. All of a sudden, a measure was rejected, leading to an election. When the election was triggered, the Liberals said they would not introduce price and wage controls to bring down inflation. After being elected on July 8, 1974, however, they did just that a year later. As my colleague said earlier, like father, like son. They say one thing and do another.
In closing, I move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C‑47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, since the bill fails to end inflationary deficits, high taxes, and the war on work, measures that would allow Canadians to bring home powerful paycheques, lower prices, and affordable homes.”.
1457 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The amendment is in order.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism .
14 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I have a great deal of respect for him.
Last month, here in the House, he said, “Our party's objective is not to take money away from the CBC”. However, his leader was quite clear about his contempt for our public broadcaster, even going so far as to beg Elon Musk to ridicule CBC/Radio-Canada.
Will the member opposite from Quebec, who was a Radio-Canada journalist himself, continue to support his leader, who wants to cut funding to CBC/Radio-Canada?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have heard many contradictory statements that are not true. Let us remember that our plan calls for budget cuts to CBC but not to Radio-Canada.
The member's intervention gives me the opportunity to clarify the misinformation floating around in the last few days. The Conservative Party's goal is not to cut funding to Radio-Canada, which provides French programming across the country, but rather to take a completely different approach with CBC, which has a 4% audience share, whereas Radio-Canada has 25%.
That is not new. Need I remind members that the father of the Prime Minister wanted to literally shut down both CBC and Radio-Canada? Let us remember that, 20 years ago, Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien orchestrated the biggest budget cuts in the history of Radio-Canada, to the tune of $600 million. That is the Liberal Party's signature.
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my regards to my hon. colleague for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. I thank him for his speech. We might not always share the same values, but he always has something interesting to say during our debates in the House.
I want to ask him about something that is unclear to me, to see if he feels the same way. In her budget, the Minister of Finance announced funding of $80 billion for the economic transition, as it is called. A lot of upcoming tax credits are absent from the bill. No money for investments, subsidies or support is directly announced, but the infrastructure development is there. From the way things are presented, it appears as though the money earmarked for this will not be part of the budget framework and will be managed separately, outside government accounts. That means there will no longer be accountability to the House.
What does my hon. colleague think of that?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, to echo my colleague's remarks about me, I could say exactly the same thing about him and all of his hard work in the House of Commons.
On the substance of the issue, specifically, the Liberal approach and the fact that the $80-billion investment in tax credits for new measures will be without any parliamentary oversight, that is unacceptable.
I would remind members that our leader has always said that to have a green economy, we need to give the green light to green projects and encourage them by focusing on positive tax measures rather than making Canada a place where, unfortunately, when people invest, they face a lot of cuts. This is especially true when it comes to setting wages. Canadians pay too much in taxes, and this discourages investment.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the great concerns my constituents have right now is the growing concern of what is happening in our climate. They are seeing changes in their region that they have never seen before. They have been very clear that, when we step forward to address climate change, they want local responses, and they want to make sure good jobs are attached to that.
Of course, the NDP forced the government to make sure that, in its clean energy economy tax credits, there would actually be a tie to companies that pay better wages and have better working conditions. I am just wondering if the member is against this, as well as the other things that are in the budget.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
