44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 21, 2023 02:00PM
- Jun/21/23 2:21:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of Liberal scandals and ethics issues, there is a laundry list of wasteful spending growing by the day: $27 million in bonuses for federal housing bureaucrats as housing costs double and the building of new homes is dropping; $116 million in consulting fees to the Prime Minister's buddies at McKinsey; $210 million to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which we will never see again after the Liberals have admitted the bank is being controlled by Beijing; and $54 million for the arrive scam app. How can we forget the stunning $4.6 billion in COVID program abuse that the Liberals could not be bothered to recover?
After eight years, the wasteful spending has added to endless Liberal deficits and painful inflation, and now to skyrocketing interest and mortgage rates for Canadians who are struggling to get by.
Conservatives will bring down inflation, get spending under control and scrap the Liberal tax hikes punishing Canadians. After all, it is just common sense. Let us bring it home.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 2:27:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it now takes 25 years for the average Torontonian to save up for the average down payment on a house. It used to be that one could pay off a mortgage in 25 years; now, that is what it takes just to get a down payment, after the Prime Minister's anti-construction inflationary policies have doubled the cost of housing. He has done this with deficits that drive up interest rates and drive down salaries, and by funding bureaucracies that block home construction.
Will the Prime Minister reverse the policies that caused the housing crisis, so Canadians can put a roof overhead?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 2:30:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's $80-billion worth of programs are not working. They have led to a doubling in the cost of an average down payment, double the necessary monthly mortgage payment, and a 120% increase in the average rent. This is way out of line with what is happening in other countries. Meanwhile, he continues to drive up interest rates on mortgages with his deficits, and to give money to local bureaucracies to block home building.
Will the Prime Minister get off the backs and out of the way of Canadians so they can finally afford a home?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 2:37:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister expects to be judged on his promises rather than his results.
The results are these. Eight years ago, housing was affordable, taking a modest 40% of average income to pay mortgages on an average house, which is something that is now up to 60%. The average cost of a house has nearly doubled. The cost of a mortgage payment has doubled. The cost of monthly rent has doubled. It is double trouble after eight years of this Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister wants to keep doing what caused the problem in the first place. Will he instead stop funding gatekeeping that blocks construction and bring down the deficits that are driving up mortgage rates?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 2:59:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last year's exorbitant increases in interest rates were incredible and unprecedented. They were caused by this government's inflationary deficit. Canadians are worried about losing their homes. According to the Bank of Canada, the average Canadian could see a 40% increase in their mortgage payments. The International Monetary Fund says that Canada is the country most at risk of experiencing a default crisis.
Will the Prime Minister finally eliminate his inflationary deficits to lower interest rates on mortgages and ensure that Canadians can keep their homes?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 3:01:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, it now takes well over 60% of a family's pre-tax income to make monthly payments on an average house. That is mathematically impossible, but it is possibly about to get worse.
The Prime Minister's inflationary deficits are driving up interest rates faster than at any time since any of us have been alive. This means that Canadians could face 40% increases in their monthly payments. There may be another bank rate increase this summer that could push Canadians to bankruptcy.
Before Canadians lose their homes, will he get rid of his inflationary deficits to bring down those terrible mortgage rates?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 3:01:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the lowest deficits in the G7. We have the best debt-to-GDP ratio, and the lowest one in the G7 as well. We are one of the three largest economies in the world, along with Germany and the United States, to have a AAA credit rating from the bond rating agencies.
Our fiscal plan is sustainable, even as we continue to invest to support low-income Canadians, to support municipalities in building more housing, and to move forward with a plan, while the Conservative Party, once again, continues to talk about cuts to programs, cuts to services and cuts for Canadians.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 5:20:18 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, given that, (i) Liberal budget 2023 adds more than $60 billion in new spending — that is $4,200 per family, (ii) inflation in Canada increased following the introduction of $60 billion in new Liberal spending, (iii) following the increase in Canada's inflation, interest rates were increased to 4.75%, (iv) the IMF warns that Canada is the country most at risk of a massive mortgage default, (v) average mortgage payments are up 122% since the Liberal Prime Minister took office, (vi) Canadian households have the most debt as a share of GDP of any country in the G7, (vii) the solution is to eliminate the deficits, balance the budgets in order to bring down inflation and interest rates, the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets.
144 words
All Topics
- 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 6:02:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are talking about taxation, the budget, the management of public funds and, most importantly, how we are going to manage the money that Canadians give us through their taxes.
Just seven months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tabled an economic update and gave the following warning. She said that we needed to control spending and avoid deficits because deficits throw fuel on the inflationary fire. Those were the exact words used by the Minister of Finance. Now, here we are seven months later and she has completely changed her tune after getting a slap on the wrist from Liberal supporters who said that they wanted more deficits and that there was no problem.
How can the member explain the fact that, just seven months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister was saying that we should not run deficits, that we should control spending and that there was a plan to balance the budget, but now all of that has gone out the window.
169 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 6:37:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will follow up on the fine speech by my colleague, who let the cat out of the bag: We will be voting in favour of this motion. The arguments contained in the motion, and I think that he elaborated on them, are obviously not to our liking. However, we agree with the conclusion: that “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets”.
When it comes to inflation and interest rates, things can get quite complicated. What better way to simplify issues than with populism and things that seem obvious to everyone, when they are actually not?
Why do we have inflation? Some will say that inflation is caused by government spending. I want to sound a note of caution, however. Inflation happens if the government spends money and if it creates deficits. Some people will therefore be tempted to say that deficits lead to inflation. That is not necessarily true. This is what is known in economics as the crowding-out effect, a term we do not often hear. It means that government deficits might not result in inflation because there is a crowding-out effect, meaning consumers save money to make up for the government deficit. The result is that there is no impact on inflation. The crowding-out effect may mean that there might be an impact on interest rates, however.
Why am I saying this? I am saying it because the thing is not so easy to understand. We could spend a long time discussing economic theories. Furthermore, some theories clash. Keynesianism is different from classical or neo-liberal economics, and so on. We have to be careful to avoid simplistic analyses or we run the risk of ignoring real solutions.
Is government spending to blame for the deficit? Is the Government of Canada responsible for global inflation? Did it ride around on a scooter, waving its arms, saying it was going to send us money and create inflation, before running away like Batman and Robin? The answer is no.
I just spelled it out in simple terms. The government is not to blame. The fault lies with the global pandemic, and with the fact that governments were forced to spend like never before in history. I never saw anything like it before. Governments were spending money hand over fist, like it was going out of style.
That is the reality. Faced with an extraordinary situation, we came up with what we believed were the best solutions at the time. That is why we have inflation. I have the figures. Inflation rose to 6.8% in 2022 and fell to 4.4% in June 2023. We can therefore agree that inflation was mainly caused by a pandemic.
Why is that? It is because we have economists who are monetarists. Monetarists believe that inflation is caused by printing money and that abundance reduces value. The more money is printed, the less that money is worth. This means that the value of money is eroded by inflation. That is the view of monetarists. A lot of people agree with this.
That is why it is the Bank of Canada that finds solutions to Canada's inflation. Our colleague, the leader of the official opposition, believes that it has fangs and prowls around at night, but in reality, the Bank of Canada is one of the most renowned banks in the world. When we travel abroad, for example to universities, we only have to mention the Bank of Canada and the audience applauds for half an hour. It is unbelievable. It is so renowned that the English decided that they wanted the Governor of the Bank of Canada for themselves. It is a little like Bedard in the world of hockey. He was that sought after.
I am just talking, but if members want to read something that is well done, they should read the Bank of Canada Review. It is well done. When they finish their university degree in economics, good economists often end up at the Bank of Canada—except for me, because I escaped. I was in the washroom when the recruiters came by. Some say that they are crazy, but they really do know their stuff. It is a renowned bank.
In 1991, they said that the only way to fight inflation effectively is to tweak interest rates. Starting in 1991, the Bank of Canada was the second bank, after New Zealand, to say that it would adjust interest rates to keep inflation between 1% and 3%. That worked beautifully until the pandemic hit. It was going so well. We were a model for the world. Now, with the increases, what did they do? They were forced to raise interest rates. It is a bit complicated.
When a government adjusts monetary policy and plays with interest rates, it takes 18 months for it to have an impact on the economy and 24 months for it to have an impact on inflation. This requires projecting two years in advance before starting to play with things. That is the reality. It is not easy.
Having said that, we could all go for a beer and tell ourselves that there is no point in us being here because the Bank of Canada manages inflation. Wait a minute. That is not true. There are things that the government can do.
First, the government can introduce well-defined policies. If wages are very high and workers are scarce, then perhaps workers could be found if the government offered tax exemptions to older people who want to go back to work. Is that complicated? A guy with glasses and a computer can do that.
No, the government would rather use the stick. They bleed dry seniors between the ages of 65 and 75 and hope that once they are at the end of their rope, they will surely want to go to work. No, that is not how to create jobs and ensure that these people can go to work.
Let us talk about housing. There is a lack of housing. It is a matter of supply and demand. We need more supply. The government needs to invest in housing. That is the smart way to fight inflation.
As for oil, we have been ripped off by shameless increases in the price of oil. Perhaps it is because we should be doing something other than burning oil. Perhaps we should be investing in the energy transition of oil companies.
With regard to productivity, we have to increase worker productivity without making more widgets. If we make more widgets, then there are more widgets on the market and the value of widgets will drop. This is not complicated.
People are wondering where I stand because I have not talked about it yet. The last part of the motion reads, “the House call on the government to table a plan to return to balanced budgets.” I would like to emphasize two things. We need restraint, not austerity. The government must stop wasting, stop encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, stop proposing one-size-fits-all measures, and stop giving money to oil companies because doing so is wrong. It has to get smart about its spending. That does not mean embracing austerity. Most of all, it must not achieve these things on the backs of Quebec and the provinces, or else services to the public will be disrupted. Most public services are delivered by Quebec and the provinces. The government must not try to rebalance its budget by cutting back on health transfers to the provinces like Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did in the past. That must not happen.
There is something called the fiscal imbalance, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the needs are in Quebec City and in the provinces, and that the money is in Ottawa. This means that, even if the government remains virtually static, it will be so drowning in money thanks to the taxes it collects and the fact that it has few areas of responsibility that 40 years from now, in addition to not having a deficit, it will no longer have any debt, and some provinces will not even be solvent. They will be forced to start from scratch under another name. I do not know if they will, but they will no longer be solvent. There is a problem somewhere.
Some think that a plan to return to a balanced budget means austerity measures. That should not be the case. There is no reason why it should be, for the reasons I outlined. This government must become responsible in how it spends money. No one can claim that it is an example. I understand that the country has weathered the COVID‑19 pandemic, but after returning to normal, no one can say that it has been rigorous and intelligent in its spending choices.
I just mentioned some ways in which the government could have done better. Some people spoke earlier about how the government provides its services. Let us just say there is a lot of room for improvement. To impose a plan would make this government more serious, less frivolous and less careless.
The government needs to make do with the amount of money it has available. It must be intelligent. It must not cut transfers to the provinces, because they are the ones who deliver the most important services to the public. It must be preventive with regard to inflation, which is currently eroding the purchasing power of those least well-off. As I said, this government needs to have targeted, intelligent spending to protect people in need. Doubling the GST tax credit was the right thing to do. I applaud that. However, we also need to fight inflation intelligently, not in a populist way.
1657 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 7:40:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise in this place today to speak to the opposition motion put forward by the Conservatives to address the cost of living crisis facing Canadians. This is a crisis that the government has done nothing to fix. In fact, it is the Liberals' inflationary policies that created the crisis in the first place.
What has their response been? They have continued to run high deficits, pushing inflation to 40-year record highs. The Prime Minister excused this reckless spending by claiming that interest rates were at record lows and would remain there for many years to come. Now we have record debt, record inflation, and interest rates that have continued to rise despite the Prime Minister's prediction. This is causing pain for Canadians across the country, as their household budgets are being stretched thinner and thinner under the Liberal tax-and-spend plan. While Canadians are struggling, the government continues to increase taxes, making the essentials more expensive.
The Liberals have been persistent in their misinformed statements that the carbon tax is a net positive for Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports on the two carbon taxes have rejected this notion. The first carbon tax the government introduced will end up costing Canadians up to 41¢ per litre of gas. The added second carbon tax will cost another 17¢ per litre. Adding GST, this comes to 61¢ per litre. This will cost Saskatchewan families an extra $2,840 each year, but some Canadian families will pay up to $4,000 for the combined Liberal carbon taxes in other parts of the country.
This is a slap in the face to Saskatchewanians and Canadians. The carbon taxes have only made life more expensive for Canadians and have cost them more money for no results. The carbon taxes were never an environmental plan; they were a tax plan to fuel government spending.
Even while Canadians are struggling, the government cannot show fiscal restraint. It has no respect for taxpayers, as it continues to ramp up its inflationary spending. When the Prime Minister formed government, the national debt was $612.3 billion. By the end of this fiscal year, the federal debt is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. This means the Prime Minister has doubled the national debt in just eight years.
The national debt will break down to $81,000 per household in Canada. Additionally, debt-servicing costs have been growing just as fast as the government's deficits. This fiscal year, it is projected that the cost to service the national debt will be $43.9 billion. This cost is quickly approaching the amount of money given to the provinces through health transfers.
Canadians are deeply concerned about the economic policies of our country, except, it would seem, those sitting on the government benches. Most Canadians do not have a trust fund to fall back on, so they need to be careful with their money. The government needs to start demonstrating respect for hard-working Canadians by being good stewards of the public purse.
Without a plan to eliminate the deficits and balance the budget, inflation and interest rates will continue to rise and hurt Canadian families across the country even more. The Liberals have not put forward a plan to do this. Instead, they poured more gasoline on their inflationary fire by adding more than $60 billion in new spending. That is $4,200 per Canadian family. This spending is driving up deficits and consequently increasing inflation.
The Bank of Canada, which was widely predicted to lower interest rates, instead raised them from 4.5% to 4.75% following the tabling of the Liberals' budget. That is why the Conservatives are now calling on the government, through this opposition motion, to return to balanced budgets and give Canadians a break.
Now we are receiving warnings from the International Monetary Fund that Canada is the country most at risk of massive mortgage defaults. Across Canada, average mortgage payments have increased by 122% since the Prime Minister took office. Despite this warning, we see no plan from the government to get inflation under control to avoid a potential mortgage default crisis. Instead, the Liberals are burying their heads in the sand, leaving Canadians to their own devices as they spend away their future. This is not sustainable and is pushing Canadians closer to the edge.
Canadian households now have the most debt as a share of GDP of any country in the G7. This is not a record we want to hold. There is a solution. The Liberals must eliminate the deficits and balance the budget in order to bring down inflation and interest rates. I know this may not be easy for them, as they seem to know only one economic policy, which is to raise taxes and print money, but the fact is that if the Liberals were to put together a plan to return to balanced budgets and eliminate deficits, lower inflation and interest rates would follow. However, this is not something they can wait to do. We are already at a crisis point.
Just last month, the food bank in Saskatoon held a food drive, as the usage of food banks has reached a new record of 24,000 people a month. Across Canada, there are 1.5 million more people using food banks on a monthly basis, not to mention that one in five Canadians is skipping at least one meal a day because they cannot afford to eat. This is because food price inflation is also at a 40-year high. “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” has predicted that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year. With many Canadians struggling paycheque to paycheque, the rising cost of food is breaking their banks.
The dream of home ownership is also fading fast. When the Liberal government took power, Canadians spent 39% of their paycheques on their monthly housing payments. Now they spend 62% of their paycheques. This is reflected by the growth of average rental and mortgage costs. Mortgage payments have doubled, from $1,400 per month to over $3,100 a month. Rent across Canada has doubled, from $1,172 to $2,153 for a two-bedroom apartment, and it has more than doubled in Canada's largest cities. This is why we must get interest rates under control.
For years, the Conservatives have warned the Liberal government that its out-of-control spending has consequences and hurts Canadians across the country. However, it responded with the infamous quote from the Prime Minister that budgets will balance themselves. We are now eight years into the government's tenure and have seen the effects of the Prime Minister's so-called self-balancing budgets. It has been a disaster for Canadians.
According to an article last month from the Financial Post and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, over 10 years, real GDP per capita growth has been at its lowest since the 1930s. The article states, “This extended period of slow growth has widened the gap between per capita growth in the United States and Canada, demonstrating that the causes of our slumping growth are domestic, not external.” The Liberals can no longer blame external factors for their own failures. The economic troubles our country now finds itself in are a result of the failed economic policies of the government.
In conclusion, I think it is in the best interests of every Canadian that this House call on the government to rein in its spending. It is time for the government to show the fiscal restraint that was promised by the Minister of Finance prior to the introduction of her latest budget. Instead of cancelling Disney+, let us cancel the deficits, axe the taxes and balance the budget.
1312 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 7:51:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to say that the motion paints an accurate picture of the difficulties faced by Canadians and Quebeckers. However, there is a problem with the solution. For the Conservatives, the solution is to eliminate deficits. They think that when the deficits are eliminated, all the problems will be magically solved: The cost of housing will drop, and households will have less debt. We really do not agree with that.
We are going to vote in favour of the need to table a plan to return to balanced budgets. We agree with that because governing requires planning. To govern is to anticipate. Tabling a plan to return to balanced budgets is the least a government can do. However, we do not agree with the measures that the Conservative Party is promising to take. Eliminating the carbon tax is the wrong thing to do. I would even say that it should be increased.
Could the Conservative Party propose more realistic solutions?
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 9:54:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask the member opposite some questions.
First, I thank him for that very fact-filled discourse. He spoke authoritatively on a number of fronts, and I would just like to check some of those facts.
He started off by saying that we were running bigger and bigger deficits every year. In 2021, the deficit was $328 billion; in 2022, it was $90 billion; and it is projected to be $40 billion this year. Could he reconcile his statement with these facts?
Second, he said that we do not know where this is all going to end, and it is true, we do not; the future is always uncertain. However, the Bank of Canada expects inflation to come down below 3% by the end of the summer and interest rates to follow in decline.
Third, he said that printing money was the cause of inflation. I understand that this is one economic theory, and it is the economic theory that the Conservatives follow. However, many economists have said that, in fact, the war in Ukraine and the COVID pandemic have been the causes of inflation worldwide.
Could you comment on a few of those apparent contradictions to what you said?
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 9:55:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been corrected. The member is correct that there were larger deficits during the pandemic than there were after the pandemic. Every year, we look at the deficit the Liberals put on the table for the next year, and it always rises. This is the point I was trying to make, and if I misspoke in that respect, I owe her an apology.
There were three questions, but the member talked about economists, Conservative theories and all this stuff. These are not Conservative theories; these are economic theories. I know that, sooner or later, the Liberals will have to start paying attention to economics and finance. The numbers will actually matter at the end of the day.
I apologize to the member because I have forgotten her second question out of the three. If she could ask me again later, I would appreciate it.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
