44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to speak tonight to this budget. I do not want to go the usual route, because we have heard a lot tonight about the dynamics around the government saying that we do not care about the people and we do not care about all of the things it has within the budget that it wants to provide Canadians. I think what is missing here is the difference in our perspectives and how polarized they are. Our view is that we want to empower Canadians in every way possible, whereas the government empowers big government. That is a huge difference in the way we process policy and perspectives on how to manage government and serve Canadians.
As a matter of fact, we believe in a balance between fiscal responsibility; compassionate social policy that empowers the less fortunate by promoting self-reliance and equality of opportunity; and the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and free associations. We believe in a federal system of government as the best expression of the diversity of our country and believe in the desirability of strong provincial and territorial governments. It is not a case of a strong federal government saying it will do what it wants at the provincial level.
We believe that the best guarantors of the prosperity and well-being of the people of Canada are as follows.
One is the freedom of individual Canadians to pursue their enlightenment and legitimate self-interests within a free, competitive economy. Our economy is being very much controlled and managed by our government right now.
Another is the freedom of individual Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their labour to the greatest possible extent. The federal government should be doing only what it must do to empower and encourage Canadians to succeed and, of course, to take care of those who need assistance, a hand-up or help in that process.
We believe in the right to own property. There is a sense that Canadians do not need to have these responsibilities anymore, and that is very contrary to what our perspective is.
We believe that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent. We are not seeing that here. This should be limited to responsibilities that cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or others. I believe that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependants, while recognizing, of course, that the government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion.
We believe that the purpose of Canada as a nation-state and its government, guided by reflective and prudent leadership, is to create a climate where individual initiative is rewarded, excellence is pursued, security and privacy of the individual are provided and prosperity is guaranteed by a free, competitive market economy. Right now, our public service has ballooned exponentially, again under a Liberal government, and I would be really curious to see what portion of the debt-to-GDP ratio the public service represents.
I believe that Canada should continue its strong heritage of national defence, supporting a well-armed military, honouring those who serve and promoting our history and traditions. We believe that the quality of the environment is a vital part of our heritage, to be protected by each generation for the next. These are the truths, the realities, of where the values of this party are, in spite of the rhetoric that comes from the other side of the floor.
We believe that a good and responsible government is attentive to the people it represents and consists of members who at all times conduct themselves in an ethical manner and display integrity, honesty and concern for the best interests of all. I think the government has had a significant issue with meeting that expectation.
We believe that the greatest potential for achieving social and economic objectives is under a global trading regime that is free and fair.
That is not all of them, but that gives members a sense of where our priorities are. They are not in growing government. This is not about saying that government knows best, as our leader has talked about. It is about giving those on assistance the opportunity to earn a living and earn money and not have it taken away before they have reached a point where they are truly self-sufficient. Those are the kinds of values we function on.
When we look at this budget and where we are today under the Liberal government's financial leadership, we simply cannot support this budget. The record continues of higher taxes and inflationary deficits.
Conservatives only asked for three things. As a matter of fact, we are demanding three things that we believe are crucial to giving the economy and the values of this country back to the people who work. Budget 2023 should end the war on work and lower taxes for workers, not raise them; end inflationary deficits, which at this point in time are incredibly out of control and are driving up the cost of everything; and remove gatekeepers to increase the building of homes for Canadians.
These are the three things that are important to us with these values. I believe that Canada and Canadians are in the dire straits they are in right now because of the Liberal government not functioning within what I see as the true values that a government should have in caring for its people.
We believe that we need to bring home powerful paycheques for Canadians with lower taxes, and we need to scrap the carbon tax, as we have said over and over again, so that hard work pays off again. Right now, in Canada, we know and we hear it constantly, the cost of food is out of control, people are skipping meals and food banks are busier than ever. The government's idea of dealing with that huge issue, which is here because of its high inflation and its inability to control spending so that we do not find ourselves in the circumstances we are in now, is to give a grocery rebate.
The Liberals talk about this as though we are against that. What we are against is ending up in this place in the first place. The unfortunate thing about that rebate is that it is less than half of what Canadian families of four would spend in addition to what they normally spend on groceries. In other words, this grocery rebate does not do anything to help them with their month-to-month costs. It is simply taking away a little less than half of what they are going to spend in larger amounts of money on their groceries because of the high inflation that Canada is experiencing.
That is not enough, but that is where we find ourselves because the Liberal government has allowed our economy to slip so significantly.
A worker making above $66,600 would be forced to pay an extra $255 to the Canada pension plan and an extra $50 to employment insurance. That is a $305 increase. It does not sound like much, but when people are not making their bills every month, it is huge.
We need to bring home lower prices by ending inflationary debt and deficits that drive up inflation and interest rates. Canada's federal debt for 2023-24 fiscal year is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. I do not think any Canadian could really fathom that, but when we break it down, that is a debt of $81,000 per household in Canada. Canadians understand that. It is huge, and adding to that the cost of servicing this enormous debt, which continues to grow. In 2023-24, it is projected to be $43.9 billion just to service that debt.
What could we be doing with that money if we had not spent the cupboard bare, then borrowed to the nth degree and then printed money on top of that? It is totally irresponsible behaviour on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. The debt load is huge. The cost of servicing that debt is out of control.
Finally, we need homes that people can afford to live in. Under the Liberals, down payments have doubled, rents are doubled, mortgages are doubled, and the whole situation is out of control. I would just end by saying that none of our demands have been met and the Conservatives will not support an anti-worker, tax-hiking, inflationary budget.
1422 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member says “scrap the carbon tax”, but she also talked about the importance of the free market.
It seems to me there are numerous groups that believe in the free market and support the carbon tax and carbon pricing. For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Mining Association of Canada, the Business Council of Canada and the Fraser Institute, which is hardly a Liberal institution.
What would the member say in response to the Chamber of Commerce, which said that carbon pricing is generally the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to lower costs? Does the member not believe in climate change?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, once again, that is ridiculous rhetoric. Do not tell me I do not believe in climate change. Of course I do. I come from Saskatchewan, where we understand exactly what that is and we have been managing it very effectively. We do not need a “green the prairies” bill, with all respect to the individual who brought it forward who is no longer with us, because we continue to improve in how we care for our environment. Do members know why? It is because it is very important to us and not only for agriculture and for mining and all of those different things that bring GDP to our country, but because we care about our kids.
Please, on that side of the floor, stop it. Canadians know that is not the truth. They see how we manage our environment and they will be thrilled when we form government.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe the member is sincere when she talks about environmental values and protecting the environment. However, I still see a contradiction. I would not wish to praise the current government's policies on climate change, far from it, because they fall short. Protecting the environment means investing substantially to counter the effects of climate change. I believe this value is completely contrary to what her party is advocating, which is to continue to contribute to the growth of the oil and gas sector.
Could the member explain how it is possible to protect the environment while at the same time continuing to build on an energy source that is no longer—
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 7:10:01 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville the chance to answer the question.
The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate that question. The truth of the matter is that valuing what we need to do for the climate is not something that Canada can take a responsibility for just for Canada. When I hear about the fires that we are experiencing and the floods and the hurricanes, these are all truly taking place, but Canada is not an island unto itself in its own environment. We are part of a global ecosystem. Therefore, the reason I support Canadian oil and gas is because I do not support Venezuelan oil and gas. I do not support these companies that are in countries that do nothing to improve the climate and also do not do what should be done with their products. We have the best products that are needed until they are no longer needed. Right now—
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 7:11:01 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not often agree with my colleague. However, she raises an important point, which is the budget's inadequacies when it comes to housing.
The NDP sees that there is a housing crisis. We want social and affordable housing. We want co-operative housing.
The budget is far from perfect, and we would have done things differently. However, there is something in there that the NDP is very proud of, and that is the fact that we forced the Liberals to provide accessible dental care for the most disadvantaged and the middle class. This year, the program is going to be expanded to cover teenagers and people 65 and over who may never have been able to access dental care.
If the member votes against Bill C-47, is she prepared to abandon the idea of dental care that is paid for by Canadian taxpayers with insurance from Parliament?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think I have made it clear what I am voting against. It is a government that is irresponsible and out of control and has put Canadians in this very dire situation. I am all about bringing supports for those who truly need them and for those who need a hand up to get out of a bad situation. I personally, during the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government, experienced 22% interest rates and the loss of my business, so I know what it is like to have nothing and have to come back. That is something that our government should be doing to help people.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I always like to start off my speeches by talking about the preceding speech. I noticed the exchange between the member for Yorkton—Melville and the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, when she said that Conservatives absolutely believe in climate change.
I do not necessarily disagree with that, but what I want to know is whether or not Conservatives believe that humans cause climate change. Less than a week ago, her seatmate, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, said that there was nothing to see here because the rocks he picks out of his garden were caused by climate change, and the rivers we have in our country are just an effect of climate change. Literally, her seatmate, less than a week ago in this House of Commons, talked about climate change as though it is just a natural cycle of the planet and as there is nothing to see here there is nothing to worry about.
Mrs. Cathay Wagantall: Come on, get on with your points.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Therefore, I take exception when a Conservative tries to suggest they believe in climate change. That is fair. However, do they believe that humans cause climate change? That is what I would love to know.
I also found it very—
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/23 7:13:53 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. This is not a dialogue between members. I am sorry. It is the hon. member's turn for his speech. He did not interrupt the hon. member when it was her turn for her speech, so I would like to allow the same courtesy to the parliamentary secretary.
Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I also found it very interesting that the member for Yorkton—Melville, in the exact same speech, said that a $467 grocery rebate was pretty much insignificant and that nobody would care about it because it really did not mean anything, but that later on in the same speech she said that a $330 CPP increase would mean something significant to people. In the same speech, she tried to downplay the grocery rebate because it was not going to be impactful, but apparently a CPP contribution amount increase that is lower than that will have a devastating impact on Canadians. We can see the hypocrisy coming from the other side. That was not just from day to day, but within the exact speeches they gave in a 10-minute period.
I am really glad she talked about forest fires and what we are seeing outside. If someone walks outside the doors of this place, they are going to smell the smoke, as we all have for the last day or so. These are the impacts of climate change. I am not trying to fearmonger. I am not trying to suggest that the entire city is going to be burnt to the ground in a couple of days, but we have to be realistic about this. The reality is that forest fires in this country have been increasing significantly since the 1980s. Despite the incredible work we have done with respect to prevention and suppression, they still tend to increase. Why is that? Someone may say it cannot just be climate change. They might ask how climate change does that.
The fire season, the season in which we see forest fires, now starts a week earlier and ends a week later than it did historically. We have drier conditions, which allow fires to start in the first place, to burn quicker and to be more impactful. We also know that half of the forest fires started in Canada are caused by lightening. Where does lightening come from? It comes from increased weather events, and we are seeing increased weather events. It is no mystery to anybody that the weather events happening throughout this country are much more dire than they used to be. Conservatives are heckling at that. I do not understand why they would, as it is a serious issue. These are Canadians' lives we are talking about
We have to make a meaningful impact. We have to realize we cannot do what the member for Yorkton—Melville said, which is that we are just one little country within a globe and this is a global ecosystem, so there is nothing we can really do and we should just throw up our hands. No, we work together with other countries on this planet, like Brian Mulroney did when he saved the world from the depletion of the ozone later. Brian Mulroney brought together 42 representatives from different countries throughout the world, in Montreal, to sign the Montreal Protocol on dealing with the depletion of the ozone layer. That is how we get things done.
Yes, members should clap for Brian Mulroney, a great progressive Conservative.
The problem is that the Conservatives of today do not look at it like that. They say we are just one little country in the world, and our emissions, comparatively speaking, are so low that we should not even worry about them. That is a very defeatist approach, and if that is the approach one wants to take, I guess it is their prerogative. I much prefer the approach of Brian Mulroney, a true progressive Conservative, who knew how to tackle world issues on the national stage and how to tackle world issues. He comes from a country that is so vast in size and limited in population compared to other countries in the world, but he knew what to do. We had a reputation of being able to do that. I find this defeatist attitude of “there is nothing we can do about it and we should just go on living our lives”, while there is literally smoke outside the doors of this building right now, so alarming.
I am very happy to see that, in this budget, we are continuing to support initiatives to get us away from burning fossil fuels. This is a transition we have to make, and it is a transition that is going to happen whether the Conservatives, or the House for that matter, are interested in being part of it or not. We are transitioning away from fossil fuels; it is happening.
One in 10 cars sold in 2022 in Canada was an electric vehicle. Do I have to explain to Conservatives how, when a new technology comes along, it takes off and the curve is exponential? By 2030, I predict, there will be very few cars sold in this country that are not zero-emission vehicles. That is the reality. This budget would provide for ensuring that we incentivize the production of EVs, the production of the batteries and the proper recycling of those batteries, because that is key as well. We want to be at the forefront of the new industries that are coming.
We can have the approach of just pretending it is not happening, and we can just keep burning fossil fuels, turn our backs on it and pretend that the world is not changing around us, like the Conservatives want, or we can be at the lead of it. We can be at the forefront of it. We can be bringing the talent and developing the talent right in our country to produce these products, patents and new ideas and concepts so Canada can be an exporter of that technology and not an importer of it. This is what we are poised to do right now with the countless number of EV manufacturers and EV battery plants that have expressed an interest and have decided to set up in Canada. In my opinion, we are genuinely at the forefront, and that is what is so absolutely key in this budget. This is why, every time I have spoken to the budget, I have spoken specifically to that.
Now, of course, what we are going to hear are multiple arguments about why electric vehicles are not sustainable or how our electricity grid will never be able to handle it. However, I have great confidence in Canadians' ability to innovate, to create and to develop new technologies that will help us deal with the challenges we face on any particular day. I have no doubt we will get through it, but we have to stay focused on the goal, and the goal is to transition to cleaner energy and away from fossil fuels.
I realize that the Conservatives will say that we have some of the cleanest standards and some of the cleanest fossil fuels, which I do not necessarily disagree with. However, I do not think it is fair, from the position of a first world country and G7 partner, one of the leaders in the OECD, to point fingers at other countries, developing countries in particular, and say “Well, look at what they are doing.” We have a responsibility in this world to be leaders, and Conservatives of the past knew that. As I mentioned, Brian Mulroney did that. He knew that about the ozone layer and when it came dealing with acid rain, and he took action. He did not care where the problem originated. He did not care who was ultimately responsible for the problem, but he believed in finding solutions everybody could agree on, and he believed that Canada could be part of the leadership on that.
Rather than Conservatives sitting on their hands and saying, “Oh well, there is nothing we can do. We are emitting only 7% of the emissions, blah, blah, blah”, why do they not start coming into the House with ideas on how we can encourage other nations to follow in our path and encourage them that the way Canada is doing it is right? That is Canada's role in this world, and it has been its role in the past. Conservative governments in the past have known that. It is just unfortunate that the reform party of today, which wears the colour blue, does not know that.
1404 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sorry that you had to reprimand me before for interjecting into the member's speech, but he is always so engaging, and I was overcome with a desire to respond. The parliamentary secretary, if nothing else, is always very entertaining.
The Liberals and the NDP would like to give Canadians the impression that the carbon tax they are paying is what they can see on their fuel bills, either at the gas pump or on their energy bills at home. However, that does not completely address the increased cost and the inflation that Canadians are actually experiencing as a result of the carbon tax, because the carbon tax is being applied to every single process of getting something to the consumer, whether it is the manufacturing, the harvesting or the moving of goods to the market. Everything is incurring the carbon tax, and that increases the price of goods and services, which is making it very difficult for Canadians to live, because that inflation is overwhelming.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am willing to accept and agree that there are inflationary impacts on various policies that come forward. I am not disagreeing with that. It is the impact and the degree to which it does this that we have to consider. We should reflect on the fact that I am at least willing to have that discussion and to accept the fact that it is a possibility. Conservatives will not even accept the possibility that inflation is not limited to Canada; they think it is something uniquely Canadian. They think we can have a trading country like Canada, with one of the most trading relationships and partners in the world, and still not be impacted by inflation in other countries.
Yes, we are experiencing inflation. It is tough on Canadians, but we are also helping them with it through this budget.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fiery speech, as usual. Quebec made a choice to have an emissions trading system. That is its own system, which is why the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.
My colleague spoke eloquently of the Montreal Protocol on CFCs. Obviously, we eliminated the threats to the ozone layer. The whole reason this came about was that an emissions trading system was implemented, increasing the price of these polluting products.
The higher price was an incentive, as the Conservatives like to think, to develop new technologies, which is why, today, the problem has largely been resolved.
If the western provinces, which do not like the carbon tax, had implemented this strategy that was used by the Mulroney government, they would not be getting the carbon tax in their provinces. Is it not somewhat their own fault that they are getting a carbon tax?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is right. I am sure he has heard me speak about this many times before, but he is right, Quebec does not have a price on pollution, which many other provinces in the country do, exactly because of that cap-and-trade deal. Ontario was a partner in that cap-and-trade deal until Doug Ford was elected as premier and got out of it. That is the reality of the situation.
We can look at how, in those five or six short years, Quebec has advanced in terms of electrifying its grid, setting up EV charging stations and taking the electrification transition seriously, and compare it to Ontario. Ontario is lagging behind, yet only five or six years ago, both provinces had joined the western initiative with a number of states in the U.S. at the same time: California, Montana and a number of other states. Right now, Ontario, to its detriment, is not doing it.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing that direct line between the smoke that is choking the capital, the fires across the country and climate change. Where I live, on the west shore of Vancouver Island, last week, firefighters stopped 10 potential brush fires from taking over our communities, and I want to shout out thanks to all those firefighters, both professional and volunteer.
We seem to have missed an opportunity in this budget implementation act to increase the tax credit for volunteer firefighters, and I wonder whether the member would commit to making sure we consider that for the next round of budget talks.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one thing I know is that firefighters have a much higher approval rating than politicians, so I would always be very careful about what I say as it relates to firefighters. The reality of the situation is that if there is a missed opportunity, if it is something we did not talk about or is something we did and it needs to be resurfaced, I am certainly always interested in having those discussions. What we do know, and we can see it from the historical trends, is that the number of fires is increasing, and it has been over the last number of decades, as I indicated in my speech. We are going to need to make sure we have the resources and supports there for firefighters, moving forward, if we are going to expect them to do these jobs.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, nostalgia is a strange thing. Sometimes it is quite surprising and remarkable what kinds of longings it can spark. When we start to skim through the contents of the 2023 budget, it is almost enough to make one nostalgic for the days, not so long ago, when the Liberal government failed to table a budget for over two years.
I say that mostly in jest, of course, but the point I am making is that, while this budget is being tabled by a Liberal government, it is certainly not a classically Liberal budget. For that, we have to think back to the 1990s when fiscal policy was something that the then Liberal prime minister at least spent a bit of time thinking about. This was when the then prime minister's finance minister at least viewed deficits as an obstacle along the road to prosperity and not a destination in and of itself.
The incarnation of the Liberal government under the Prime Minister and the finance minister would certainly be unrecognizable to Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. Members across the way who remember when their leaders held at least some concern for fiscal responsibility ought to reflect on just how far off path their party has wandered. Maybe if they did that, they would feel a little nostalgic themselves.
With contents such as bigger government, higher taxes and more debt, this document reads less like a budget and more like a 270-page love letter from the Prime Minister to the spendthrifts who have overtaken the Liberal Party, and to those already well-established among its partners in the New Democratic Party. At a time of massive debt, this budget proposes $67 billion in new spending, and all of this is being thrown on the heap of huge debt and deficits that has already been racked up by the Prime Minister over the last eight years, which amounts to more than all of the debt accrued by all previous prime ministers combined.
This 2023 federal budget would add significantly to the high debt, deep-deficit turbulence that is shaking our economy. A cost of living crisis is ongoing, and inflation is eroding Canadians' paycheques at the same time it is increasing their bills. Therefore, naturally, the Liberal government somehow sees this as the ideal time to add to their burdens by increasing their taxes and the debt they owe. With this budget, every Canadian household's share of the federal debt is now in the range of about $81,000.
This debt is unaffordable, as $43 billion would be syphoned off, away from services for Canadians, to service the interest on that debt. That money would have to be replaced through that much more borrowing. It is unsustainable. Canadians not even born yet, and even their kids, their grandkids and their great-great-grandkids, will be on the hook to pay back the bankers for the Liberals' eight-year spending spree. Hopefully, that is where it stops.
It is unfocused because, if the purpose of a federal budget is to present a path forward to future prosperity for Canadians, this document clearly misses the mark. It sacrifices the dinner table concerns of everyday Canadians on the altar of the costly coalition's big government ideology. The real problems facing this country get eclipsed in deference to the partisan priorities of the Liberal-NDP partners.
This budget has the dubious distinction of being notable not for its contents, but for what it does not contain. Canadians seeking relief from the inflation crisis will not find here a reversal of the inflationary deficits and taxes that would allow workers to bring home more of their own earnings. Lowering taxes and leaving more of their money in Canadians' pockets is the single most effective way the government could have helped citizens in a cost of living crisis. The Liberals do not want to do that because that would mean more cash for Canadians to decide how best to spend it on their own priorities and less for the government to hand out on what it perceives that to be.
Instead of empowering Canadians through more powerful paycheques, the budget proposes yet more new programs for them to fund through Canadians' paying more taxes. This increases taxpayers' obligations too, and therefore their reliance upon, bigger government, and that is exactly the way the Liberals want it.
The Liberals fancy themselves as gatekeepers. This paternalistic government does not trust Canadians to best deploy their own dollars, so it sets itself up instead as the arbiter of how Canadians' money can best be used. This is a spoiler alert, but in their minds, that best use is not for the priorities of Canadians. Rather, it is to fund the Liberal-NDP agenda.
Canadians will also not find in this budget a blueprint for a freer, more responsive economy, one that removes the government gatekeepers who use restrictions and red tape to complicate problems rather than streamlining processes to provide solutions.
We need more housing in this country, but we have too many gatekeepers running interference. Canadians are looking for a smart, responsive policy that enables the free market to work as it should, respond to demand and provide the affordable housing stock a growing population needs.
Canadians will not find measures along that line in this budget. Rather than creating solutions to the problems that exist, the Liberals create new problems that impact housing, such as the way they have implemented their underused housing tax, for example. Taxing Canadians under the guise of going after foreign speculators, costing Canadians massive amount of accounting and administrative fees and making them fill out all kinds of forms to force them to justify the use of their own properties will not do anything to address the housing crisis that has vastly worsened under the Liberals. These are the kinds of things the government does instead of getting serious about addressing the real problems facing Canadians.
Not only that, but young Canadians looking to save up for their first home would find that task just a bit easier if the budget had simply ended the carbon tax hikes and the deficit spending that continue to drive up inflation and interest rates, and make life more unaffordable. Instead of listening to Canadians, Liberals are continuing with their war on work and increasing taxes, which means workers are punished for working, and taking home even less of their pay.
What they do take home, the Liberal fiscal policy driving the affordability crisis is steadily eroding. Items as essential as food are becoming increasingly harder for Canadians to afford. Good nutritious options are becoming luxury items for far too many pantries as household budgets are stretched to the breaking point. In my riding, for example, food banks in Airdrie, Cochrane, Morley and Bow Valley are struggling with at least a 50% increase in demand over the previous year, yet the government continues to find ways to fuel that inflation with further spending, and more families in communities in my home province of Alberta are struggling, just as families right across the country are.
For example, an oil and gas worker in Alberta, with a family of four to feed, is forecast to spend up to over $1,000 more on food this year, according to “Canada's Food Price Report 2023”, and that is almost $600 more than the rebate they will receive. That money has to come off of an already smaller paycheque that worker is trying to make due with, so it is that same trend. The government insists on taking more of the hard-earned dollars from Canadians for its big government agenda, while leaving Canadians with less to fend for themselves.
The government is not also forcing Canadians to make due with smaller paycheques, but also penalizing their community to earn them. The carbon tax increased to 14¢ per litre on April 1, making it more expensive for Canadians to get to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer shows the carbon tax will cost the average family somewhere between $402 and $847. That is even after the supposed rebates. That blows a huge hole in the Liberals' claim that their scheme is revenue neutral. By 2030, the government's carbon taxes could add 50¢ per litre to the price of gasoline. That is all in addition to the new payroll taxes the government is putting on workers and employers as well.
These tax-and-spend policies, and others like them, have a human cost, with everyday impacts on people struggling just to get by, and giving back some of the crumbs of the feast the government takes for itself is not going to fix those impacts. Acting on the financial mess they are causing will be the solution, but it is clear that nothing is going to change with the Liberal government.
Canada's federal debt for 2023-24 is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. The 2023-24 deficit is projected to be $40.1 billion. Eight years of the same old has become this tired group's stock and trade. There is no path to balance in Canada's future budget projections. It is just another Liberal promise broken. No matter what the challenges are that are facing the nation, the Liberals always default to their instincts for bigger government, higher taxes, more restrictions and fewer freedoms, to the detriment of hard-working Canadians. Their record proves it.
We need a Conservative government in this country that will prioritize the needs of people instead of its own friends, like the Liberal Party has done. It is time for change, and it cannot come soon enough for Canadians.
1627 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member was speaking about nostalgia, I was thinking nostalgically of when I used to think the Conservative Party of Canada knew something about the economy and was a business champion. What I heard in the speech were things about tax increases. I was looking for a chapter on tax increases and, unfortunately, I could not find it, but I did find a chapter on growing a clean economy and looking at what we are going to do to capture the $100-trillion investments between now and 2050 in clean technologies and the global clean economy.
I saw, “Clear and predictable investment tax credits to provide foundational support for clean technology manufacturing, clean hydrogen, zero-emission technologies, and carbon capture and storage”, all things that will get Canada into a better economic position by participating in the clean economy of the future, including not only predictable increases in our carbon pricing but also increases in money going back to Canadians.
Could the hon. member talk about the opportunities we have in the clean economy and how this budget addresses that?
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
