44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 21, 2023 02:00PM
- Jun/21/23 5:36:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the hon. member wants balanced budgets. I agree with that. I have put forward several ideas for saving money.
For example, $35 billion of taxpayers' money was allocated to the infrastructure bank. However, it has not completed a single project in five years. This is an enormous waste of money. What is more, the amounts awarded to consultants keep increasing, even though we have a larger public service that can do exactly the same work. Buying back hunting rifles is another example of waste.
There is a lot of waste in this government. We will eliminate waste and balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:48:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, over the last three decades, there have been 20 Conservative budgets introduced in the House. I am wondering if the member knows how many of those 20 Conservative budgets actually were balanced or ran a surplus.
I ask because when he discovers that the answer is only three, he must know that there is a reason for that.
Why is it that between Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, of the 20 budgets that were introduced in the House, only three ran a surplus or were balanced? Why is that?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:51:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a perfect correlation in the fact that all governments that ran greater deficits ended up with higher inflation.
Something that we do not hear bandied around any more, although we used to in the beginning, is the modern monetary theory, this whole new proposition that we can spend our way out of a pandemic, out of a major problem, and that budgets would balance themselves. There was new thinking, although money has been around for thousands of years, that we could just keep spending and there would be no consequences. Well, the consequences are here and they are very real, and Canadians see them every single day.
This motion that we have is perfect, because it talks about going back to the table to return to balanced budgets. We have identified so clearly that Canadians know—
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:08:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion that has been put before the House.
I will start by saying that I am concerned about the rhetoric in the preamble. However, the motion and the result clause is fairly short. It talks about a balanced budget and committing to a balanced budget immediately.
I found this very interesting because I asked the member for Bay of Quinte how many times Conservatives introduced balanced budgets in the House, and I even gave him the answer. It was three times in the last 30 years that Conservatives have introduced balanced budgets in the House, under Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. There was a grand total of 20 budgets introduced, and three were balanced.
Do members know when they came? The first came in 2006-07. This was on the heels of Paul Martin's surplus, which was a $13-billion surplus. Stephen Harper axed that the next year, and in 2007-08, the surplus was only $9.6 billion. After that, he started to run deficits immediately. He blew away that surplus that Paul Martin had left for him and started running deficits immediately. Then, of course, there is the famous balancing of the budget in 2014-15, when Stephen Harper slashed veterans services and sold off GM shares at bargain prices just so that he get himself in a position on paper that he was bringing in a surplus because he felt he needed to do that to solidify his base that was demanding it.
However, rather than dwell on the fact that Conservatives have done this historically, at least in recent history, I think we have to ask ourselves something: Why do governments run deficits?
There are two reasons. A government can run a deficit, one, because it is expecting the taxpayer to pay more to make up that deficit and plans to charge or tax them more or, two, because it is investing. The whole idea behind investing is assuming that a government will get something in return for that investment. When governments are running deficits to invest in Canadians, they are doing it with the expectation that something is going to come out on other end to grow our economy. When we grow our economy, people are better off and there is more wealth in our economy.
What about population growth? We are growing at historic rates. We are just past 40 million people in Canada. When we continue to grow in such a fashion, we need to make new investments, and we are seeing it on the other side through the growth, which is why Canada is continually rated to have one of the best credit ratings in the developed world. That is why we have such a low debt-to-GDP ratio, which is what people really need to focus on. However, I know that it is not intuitive for people to want to focus on that, especially when Canadians are managing a household budget, and they cannot look at it the same way, but the reality is that we have to look at our debt in relation to our GDP.
As our GDP continues to grow, if we are spending less than that growth, we have a net benefit at the end of the day, which is essentially what we see when we bring forward these budgets that are investing in Canadians. Quite frankly, that is something that Brian Mulroney understood. It is something that Stephen Harper understood, and it is something that former Liberals, such as Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, understood.
They understood that, if we invest in Canadians and actually use the money to invest in Canadians when running those deficits, we will get to a place eventually where Paul Martin got to, which was a $13-billion surplus, and a surplus the year after that as well. We will get to those places naturally. The point is that we can get to that place by investing in Canadians because we see the economic growth, see the opportunities, see people being better off and see the debt-to-GDP ratio. We see the debt specifically as it relates per capita to the lowest among the G7, as we are hearing.
There is one thing we should be concerned about, and I rightfully share it with so many other people. It is the debt level each household is experiencing right now in Canada, but we have to ask ourselves why. Why is that? Is there something unique about Canada and our spending habits that puts us in that position? It has a lot to do, I would suggest, with the age of our population.
In the G7, Canada has one of the youngest populations. These are people who are buying new homes and investing for the first time. These are people who do not have the retirement savings that other G7 countries have. Am I excusing anything? I am not. I am saying that we have to be mindful of this and we have to be vigilant in the approach and ensure Canadians do not put themselves into situations they do not want to be in.
I stress that there is a reason for the circumstances we are in, but regardless of all of this, Canada still puts itself in a position of being among the best in the G7, as it relates to the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio, and I think it is very important that, as we reflect on this, we consider that.
I have brought these up on a number of occasions recently, and I want to talk about them again. They are the recent comments made by former prime minister Brian Mulroney on the job this government has been doing. I mean no disrespect to any living Liberal prime ministers, but I have not even heard a former Liberal prime minister speak this highly of the current government.
Brian Mulroney said, “I have learned over the years that history is unconcerned with the trivia and the trash of rumours and gossip floating around Parliament Hill. History is only concerned with the big ticket items that have shaped the future of Canada”. The article continues, “He said [the current Prime Minister] and the premiers 'conducted themselves as well as anybody else in the world' in dealing with COVID, something Mulroney called 'the greatest challenge that any prime minister has dealt with...in 156 years.'”
We have heard Conservatives tell us many times in the past how we failed the country on NAFTA, but here is what the architect of NAFTA, the Prime Minister who was the lead at the time and negotiated the original NAFTA deal, had to say about the job this government did. The article describes, “On NAFTA, Mulroney said that he saw first-hand how the current Prime Minister made 'big decisions at crucial moments' and won 'a significant victory for Canada'. He said, 'It's due to the leadership that we saw from the government of Canada'”. That is Brian Mulroney, a former Conservative prime minister, absolutely praising the work this government did in relation to keeping our economy in a good position when we had to renegotiate NAFTA.
I remember the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle at the time standing up in question period demanding the government capitulate to Donald Trump's demands, but we did not. The government stood firm. Our finance minister negotiated this, and we got a better deal at the end of the day. Brian Mulroney will even tell us that. Also, we can look at the various other things that have occurred.
I know that my time is running to an end. I think that once again we have an opposition motion in front of us that is troubling. I am getting tired of challenging the Conservatives day in and day out, but here we are. It is the last one. Hopefully when we return in the fall, we will have motions with perhaps a little more substantive measures to them than what we are seeing now.
1367 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:32:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much enjoy working with my colleague from the Bloc at the finance committee. I find him to be an articulate and thoughtful member of the committee.
Our motion is basically to call on the government to balance budgets. I will note that, during the 2015 campaign, the Prime Minister promised he would balance the budget by 2019. Just recently, in the fall economic statement, the government had projected a surplus in the 2027-28 year. It quickly reneged on that in this budget on March 28.
Could the member share his thoughts on how anyone can believe anything the government says when it comes to balancing budgets?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:35:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank and commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. It was an immense pleasure and privilege to work with him at the Standing Committee on Finance. He is doing great work in his new job.
We do not agree with every argument presented in the motion. What we find there is disingenuous. The motion asks that “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets” without specifying a date.
To us, governing means being responsible and presenting projections. We support this desire for transparency.
I will offer some solutions to my colleague, since he works in the revenue department. In the fight against the use of tax havens, there is a lot of money to be recovered. That is something that would help in returning to balanced budgets.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 6:52:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly do not support cryptocurrency, which creates inflation.
I would like to highlight an important point that I did not previously mention. Introducing a plan to return to balanced budgets will have an impact on the economy and inflation by changing expectations about inflation. Inflation feeds itself. Forecasting inflation is enough to create it and to throw us in an inflationary spiral. Proposing a plan to balance the budget will lower expectations of inflation occurring. This curbs salary increases, which in turn limits inflation.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 7:20:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been brought to mind by this motion is the focus on this idea of returning to balanced budgets. In times past, during both Conservative and Liberal majority governments, they tried to make themselves look better by balancing the budget. To do this, not only did they cut services, but they also cut housing strategies and a lot of things Canadians depend upon. They also raided the employment insurance fund, which was paid for by the deferred wages of workers. What is the member's perspective on that? I would really love to hear.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 7:50:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Conservatives love to stand up in the House and claim to be the stewards of the economy and to have presided over the previous government with balanced budgets, but they only balanced the budget once and it was a fake balanced budget. It was at the expense of a lot of infrastructure in Canada.
The member opposite ran on a commitment in the last election to both price carbon and run deficits. I do notice there has been a little change of heart of late on the other side, but there is a lack of a plan. It would be great to hear directly from the member on this. Any balanced budget would require program cuts. What specific programs is she suggesting the government cut?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 7:52:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that at every step of the way, Conservatives have been providing solutions to this place and to the current government.
The fact of the matter is that after eight years under the Liberal government, Canadians are struggling. We are hearing from our constituents in our ridings. Although the government assures Canadians that they have never had it so good, it only really shows how out of touch it is. It is time for the government to take economic policy seriously and return to balanced budgets. It needs to start paying attention to monetary policy.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 8:39:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to make a few suggestions to my colleague.
When he was finishing his speech, he said that he only had one minute left and that he wanted to speak about revenues. The Conservatives talk about returning to balanced budgets, which is the right thing to do, but I would like to know how they will do that. Their speeches indicate that they want to embrace austerity. I have a few suggestions for my colleague that will not require austerity and will generate a lot of revenue. For example, funding and the extension of Trans Mountain could stop immediately. More than $30 billion has been spent on that project. We could also fight tax havens. To govern is to plan and anticipate.
It is right and conscientious to have a plan to return to balanced budgets. However, will that happen? How will we achieve balanced budgets?
What does my colleague think of my two suggestions?
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 8:43:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the fiscally responsible constituents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
The Ottawa Valley is as diverse as it is beautiful. The average day of a soldier in Petawawa is very different from a farmer's day. A nuclear scientist in Deep River has challenges very different from those of a logger in Wilno. Despite their different backgrounds and different daily routines, every single one of them understands what it means to be fiscally responsible.
Listening to the Liberals and my colleagues, it seems as though the government has a different understanding. For most Canadians, to be responsible with money is to live within their means. Our finance minister's understanding of fiscal responsibility seems to be torn from the pages of a Disney fairy tale. Like a naive, entitled Disney princess, the finance minister has advice to Canadians struggling with inflation: “Let them eat Netflix.” Canadians should set aside the minister's advice on how to save on streaming costs.
As with every other policy priority, the Liberals' goal is to make life unaffordable. This costly coalition's online streaming tax will only increase the cost of enjoying a movie. This costly coalition's carbon tax will triple the costs of anything that requires energy, which is everything. This costly coalition's clean fuel regulations will make gasoline more expensive, while simultaneously ruining two-stroke engines as a result of the added ethanol. This costly coalition's latest budget will only spur more inflation. Every extra dollar the out-of-control socialist coalition borrows and spends puts pressure on the Bank of Canada to increase interest rates. Every rate hike means more money going to wealthy bondholders and less money for critical services and national security. Canadians are drowning in a sea of rising inflation, and the Liberal plan is to throw water bottles at them.
During his recent speech on the budget, the Conservative leader quoted from Ecclesiastes:
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
When it comes to the government, that quote hits hard. Canadians are learning that there is nothing new under the son of Pierre Trudeau. Just like his father, he swept to power with a mania that seemed to capture the spirit of the times. Within four years, that spirit was dead, and disillusioned Canadians returned a minority government.
Like father, like son: Both cut expensive deals with the NDP. Both of them repudiated the fiscal policies of their Liberal predecessors. If someone told me when I was first elected that I would feel pity for the legacy of Paul Martin, I would have suggested they seek professional help, and here we stand in the wreckage and ruins of Canada's consensus that budgets should be balanced.
After eight years of Pierre Trudeau, Canadians found themselves living with stagflation. After 16 years of Pierre Trudeau, Canada was on the brink of bankruptcy. Pierre Trudeau was in power for 16 years, and it took another 16 years just to get back to balance. After eight years of the current Prime Minister, the situation might be even worse than it was in 1984.
As much as the Prime Minister would like to live in a fantasy world where budgets balance themselves, Conservatives believe in reality-based policy. The hard truth some Canadians will need to relearn is that progressive socialism always fails everywhere it is tried, because eventually they run out of other people's money. Unfortunately, progressive socialists never admit that they are economically illiterate and historically blind.
When they have taxed away all of Canadians' income, they will come for their savings next. When progressive socialists turn government into a gravy train, we should not be surprised that groups of people begin to fight for the best seats on board, but it does not have to be this way, and it is not too late for the government to change course. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to come back with a plan to balance the budget.
Canadians should remember that the Liberals claimed that they did have a plan. Originally, the plan was to run itsy-bitsy deficits of $10 billion for two years.
719 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 9:24:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that seemed like a very well-reasoned, well thought-out speech. However, the motion that we are debating right now has a question, and the question is whether or not the government should be called upon to table a plan to return to balanced budgets.
I wonder if the member would agree that governments, no matter what their political stripe, should strive to at least create a plan to have balanced budgets?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 9:37:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compliment. I know everybody is waiting with bated breath to hear what I have to say next. I will try not to disappoint.
The fact of the matter is the IMF is now urging Canada to bring a debt anchor and to keep fiscal policy tight. What does that mean, keeping fiscal policy tight? It means moving toward balanced budgets, not just relying on what they might call fiscal guardrails or reducing debt-to-GDP ratios, but actually having a hard fiscal anchor. This is the IMF talking, not me. A hard fiscal anchor. What they mean is a plan to get back to balanced budgets.
The Bank of Canada, to its credit, has been engaged in a policy of fiscal tightening, trying to reduce the money supply and raising interest rates, trying to grapple with the scourge of inflation. The problem is that the fiscal policy of the Government of Canada is running counter to that.
We have loose fiscal policy in this country, meaning that billions and billions of dollars are still going out the door of the budget this year. It was $495 billion, almost half a trillion dollars. Mr. Speaker, I know you have been here for a while, and I know you know that is a lot of money. It is way more than it was even in 2019.
We have a real issue in this country, and I think we need to bridge the gap. We need the government and its coalition partners to take this concept seriously, go back to the drawing board and at least come back with a plan. That is all this motion asks for, not to balance the budget tomorrow or at two o'clock this morning when we are voting on the appropriations, but to come back soon with a plan, just like they had for 2027, to bring the budget back into balance.
321 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 9:41:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about a plan to return to balanced budgets. We agree that governments need to be able to plan ahead. It is only right for us to be able to see a plan.
My colleague is worried about inflation. Pensioners on fixed incomes and seniors are struggling to make ends meet. Does he not think that instead of giving $20 billion in subsidies to oil companies that made $220 billion in profits in 2022, we should take some of that money and increase old age pensions and ensure that our seniors can live better?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
