SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 233 - Oct/17/23

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Oct/17/23 1:22:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to participate in this official opposition day debate on the cost of living, which is having a major impact on all Canadians. First of all, let me pay my respects to my new colleague from Oxford, who delivered a very great and powerful speech, as everybody does here on this side of the House. When we talk about inflation, that is a topic that, unfortunately, Canadians are concerned about the most today. Inflation is affecting everyone, but has the biggest impact on the least fortunate among us and on people who earn the least. That is the problem: Inflation affects everyone, but hits the least fortunate the worst. We have also seen that inflation is greedy and it infiltrates everything from housing to food to transportation. The government has a major role to play in controlling inflation. Yes, inflation is affecting everyone, but it would not be so bad if we were fortunate enough to have a government that acted responsibly and controlled spending, which it has never done in eight years of governing. After eight years of Liberal governance, what do we see in this country? Inflation is too high and the cost of living is very high. Everything is more expensive and unfortunately the government is to blame for that. We should remember that these fine people were elected in 2015 on a promise to run three small deficits and balance the budget in 2019. Many people thought it was bold to do that, ambitious even. Many people also knew that it would not work. Unfortunately, we were the ones who said that, and we were right because, in eight years, this government has never been able to balance the budget, control spending or keep its promise of zero deficit. This has a direct impact on inflation. We should also remember that every time she is asked a question about this these days, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister keeps repeating to wait, that the economic update is coming and that we are going to see measures to control inflation. I would remind the House that a year ago, almost to the day, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tabled the economic update. What did she say at that time? Quite a lot, when you quote her. She said, “What all Canadians want right now is for inflation to keep coming down, and interest rates to fall....that is one of our primary goals in this year's budget: not to pour fuel on the fire of inflation”. What the minister said was ludicrous, to put it politely. A year ago, she said that we would have a balanced budget by 2028, and that anything less would amount to pouring fuel on the fire of inflation. Six months later, unfortunately, we got $60 billion in new spending, $60 billion worth of fuel that she poured on the fire of inflation. Today, we are struggling with that. A year ago, the Minister of Finance said that the budget would be balanced by 2028. She did not meet that goal. Six months ago, she tabled a budget that not only ran a deficit, but, more importantly, did not include a plan for achieving a balanced budget. Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer observed that the deficit was set to exceed $46 billion, 16% more than forecast six months ago. These people have no management skills. After eight years of a government whose spending is out of control, Canadians are suffering the direct effects of inflation across the board. Earlier, my colleague from Oxford was talking about food banks. My riding has the great privilege of having extraordinary volunteers, people whose hearts are in the right place and who work hard to help the less fortunate. However, they tell me over and over again, every time I see them, that food is a basic necessity and demand for their services is going up. Two years ago, people were bringing food to our most vulnerable to help them. Today, those same people are going to the food bank for help. It is outrageous that middle-class people in a G7 country have to line up at food banks. That is the reality of Canada after eight years of this government. Inflation is affecting young people who want to buy a home. Mortgages, down payments and rents have doubled in the eight years this government has been in power. When people cannot afford proper food and a decent home, that means there are some deeply rooted problems. They are very significant problems that are hitting Canadians and Quebeckers who are struggling with inflation. That is why this government needs to seize the opportunity. Continued overspending will lead to broken dreams for the next generation. This morning, the Journal de Québec and the Journal de Montréal, issued by the QMI Press Agency, published a survey conducted by Centraide of Greater Montreal, an agency that has been helping people everywhere for decades. This survey is quite worrisome because it reveals that people are experiencing increasingly high levels of financial anxiety. Some 85% of people say they feel anxious when they talk about their personal finances. The survey reports on the financial anxiety index of Centraide of Greater Montreal and was conducted in collaboration with Leger. Claude Pinard, director of the Centraide of Greater Montreal, said the following: People in poverty don’t have a cushion, they’re people who live day to day and try to get through the month. However, when you are this tight, your budget items are entirely occupied by housing and food. If you have credit card or other debts, and if they increase, you no longer have the capacity to pay the essentials. This is increasingly the reality for many Canadians who are currently struggling with inflation and who see, as we do, as everyone does, that the government is doing nothing to curb inflation. As we know, the best thing a government can do to control inflation is to stop its uncontrolled spending. I was talking about young people. It is unworthy of a G7 country like Canada to let its young people lose their ambitions and dreams. The survey shows that 85% of Quebeckers are experiencing varying degrees of financial stress. One of the fears reported is that young people aged 18 to 34 will never be able to own their own home. Nearly two-thirds of them think that way. Fully 61% of young Quebeckers have given up on the possibility of becoming homeowners one day. What a sad reality. We need to get a handle on this situation. To quote Mr. Pinard again, “When we know that it takes an annual income of more than $100,000 to buy in Montreal, many young people say to themselves: we will never be able to buy. Many also do not see the suburbs as an option. They must therefore give up their dream”. This is heartbreaking and gut-wrenching. At the ripe age of 59, I think I can say that we were all young once. We all had ambitions. We all dreamed of owning a home, as beautifully expressed in the song Dégénérations, which was quoted by our leader in his speech at the Conservative Party convention in Quebec City. If young people lose this dream and see that home ownership in Canada has become impossible after eight years of this Liberal government, it means that we, as a country, as a nation, and despite all our pride, have really gone off the rails. We have to get back on track. That is why today's motion aims to get the government back on track. The government needs to get its head out of the sand. The government needs to realize that after eight years of uncontrolled spending, we are now paying the cost. It is never too late to do the right thing. That is why we are asking the government to do what any manager should do when a crisis hits: Have a game plan for balancing the budget. We are not asking for a miracle. We are simply asking the government to do what it promised in 2015 but then promptly forgot, and that is to balance the budget. It is the very foundation of the economy. It is at the very basis of respecting the promise made in 2015. It is at the very basis of restoring the confidence and hope of young people who one day want to own their own home, but who today are seeing that dream being shattered by the inflationary crisis that has hit the country and by the irresponsibility of this government, which continues to spend, spend, spend. In good faith and with the best of intentions, I invite the government to pull itself together, get back on track, and introduce a plan to return to a balanced budget, for the good of all Canadians.

1522 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/17/23 1:32:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. What the Conservatives fail to talk about or recognize with respect to Canada's inflation rate compared to that of the United States is that, at its worst, in June 2022, Canada hit its record of 8%, while the United States was, I believe, closer to 9%. If we fast-forward to today, Canada's inflation rate is still less than that of the United States. As much as the Conservative Party likes to say how Canada is broken, which it is not, we still understand the importance of dealing with the issue of inflation in order to support Canadians. That is why we brought forward legislation to be able to provide things like grocery rebates and housing support programs for new rentals. Why does the Conservative Party ignore that fact and, to top it off, continue to filibuster government legislation that would provide support to Canadians?

152 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Oct/17/23 1:33:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg North for the victory of his daughter, who was elected two weeks ago in the provincial election. Speaking of winning elections, let me remind him that he won in 2015. At the heart of his commitment in 2015 was a zero deficit by 2019. I know the member, and he knows this story very well. I am quite sure he is not very proud to be part of a government that, in the last eight years, has never brought the budget to a zero deficit. I hope that this time, he will listen to us.

105 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Oct/17/23 1:33:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I never doubted my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent's good judgment. I know that he is a seasoned, very rational parliamentarian. That being said, should we not cut off the greedy barons of Canadian society when it comes to balancing the budget and supporting the less fortunate, those who are having trouble putting a roof over their heads and food on the table, the people the member often talks about? Should we not cut off the oil companies, which will be getting $83 billion in financial support by 2025? Yesterday, when we talked about this in committee, a Conservative member apologized to the representatives of Suncor because we were asking them tough questions. Does that not go against common sense? I would like to hear the reasoned comments of my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent.

143 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Oct/17/23 1:34:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the quality of his question, because the last time he asked me a question, his tone was a little different. That being said, it is rather curious to note that his party's policy is to dig deep into Quebeckers' wallets, since the Bloc agrees with the second Liberal carbon tax. They had two opportunities to vote against it, but they voted in favour. Worse still, that does not go far enough for the Bloc Québécois, which wants to radically increase consumption taxes. I am sorry, but we really have to disagree with the Bloc Québécois, because voting for the Bloc Québécois is far too costly.

128 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Oct/17/23 1:35:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly have respect for my colleague across the way, but with the Conservatives, much of the common sense plans are usually on the backs of the people who can least afford it, the people currently living in poverty. We know the Conservatives' plans for helping those with mental health and addictions issues. We know through research, and certainly in my riding, that under a Conservative government, we are seeing record numbers of overdoses right now. To me, it is not common sense to not listen to public health experts. I am wondering whether my hon. colleague agrees with me that part of having a common sense plan is to ensure having a plan to help people struggling with addictions that follows public health advice, which is to support safe supply and safe consumption.

136 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Oct/17/23 1:36:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the point is that in the last weeks, in the last months, and we can even say in the last years, governments applied some policies that did not work. Those policies are not working. This is the reality. This is why we need to have a more common sense plan to address this difficult and touchy issue. The point is that in the last years, those policies did not work.

72 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Oct/17/23 1:37:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's opposition motion debate. I first want to congratulate the Conservatives on bringing forward a motion that is not directly associated with the issue they have been bringing forward time after time in the House. Now, we get to talk about something a bit different, although I do have great concern with the premise of the motion they have brought forward. The “whereas” clauses and the assertions they have made are, I think, wholly inaccurate, and I look forward to explaining that in the next 10 minutes or so. This country certainly took on a lot of debt in order to support Canadians from coast to coast during the pandemic, and we have certainly had to take on our fair share to do that, much of which was unanimously approved by the House, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic. However, it is always important to look at things in terms of context. Obviously, debt is significantly affected by GDP, the amount a country is able to produce in terms of economic activity, because that is exactly what will end up supporting that debt. When we talk about the debt in this country and when we look at the debt-to-GDP ratio, Canada is actually doing quite well. As a matter of fact, if we look at our debt-to-GDP ratio, we are at 14%. Some people might ask whether that is good or bad. That is fair, because I do not think everybody is an economist and knows the default answer to that, but let us compare that 14% in Canada to the percentage for our G7 partners. France is at 99%. Germany is at 47%. Italy is at 129%. Japan is at 161%. Probably the two most comparable to us, the U.K. and the United States, are at 95% and 96%. When we talk about our debt levels, it is extremely important to compare where we stand on them to the position of our G7 counterparts, our most comparable economies in the world. In that regard, we are in an extremely good position. I would add that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants today. That is very important for context. I know that Conservatives, including this lot here, like to come into the House and routinely tell us about how theirs is the only party that knows how to introduce a balanced budget. They may want to go ahead and cheer and clap now, because usually they do that when I try to pay them a compliment, before I add the “but”. It is really important to consider this: Conservatives will tell us that they know how to balance budgets, but if we look back to— An hon. member: We do. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, they said “we do”. They will then have to explain the following facts to me and why they did the following. Since 1990, there have been only two prime ministers who have significantly added a surplus or balanced a budget. They were Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. This is interesting, because Conservatives will always say that Stephen Harper balanced budgets, but no, he did not, and Brian Mulroney never had a single balanced budget. Stephen Harper did not really either, and I will explain why. The first two budgets Stephen Harper brought into Parliament were on the heels of Paul Martin's surpluses that he had been running for years. The Conservatives certainly squandered those surpluses and went into a deficit position very quickly. Of course, Conservatives also like to tell us, and I have heard it already this morning, that they left the fiscal state of this country in great shape in 2015 with the last budget they presented in a last-ditch effort to get Canadians to vote them into office one more time. They brought forward a “balanced budget”, and for the purposes of Hansard, I should say I am putting “balanced budget” in quotes, but they did it on the backs of veterans by closing Veterans Affairs offices. They sold off our shares of GM at the time at bargain prices in order to get that off their balance sheet. They did a whole host of things in order to portray the illusion that they had balanced the budget, when they really had not. They did it at the expense of Canadians and the investments the government had on behalf of Canadians. I know that many will say this was so long ago, 10 years ago for Harper and even longer for Mulroney. Fine, let us just get back to this lot of Conservatives right here. All of them who are here today ran on Erin O'Toole's plan in the last election, and that plan was to run deficits for a minimum of 10 years. Here we have a group of Conservatives who are now coming into the House with a motion that says to develop a plan for a balanced budget by October 25 of this year, a week and a half from now. Meanwhile, they had no intention of doing so when they were running in the last election. They did not care when they were knocking on doors and presenting their plan to Canadians. The plan from Erin O'Toole and the Conservatives was to run deficits for at least 10 years. That is the reality of it. This should be concerning to Canadians, because this is not the first time that we are seeing hypocrisy come out of the Conservatives. It is actually the second time. They also ran on a plan to introduce a price on pollution and to modify the existing price on pollution that this side of the House had. They ran on that, too. This morning, somebody challenged them and asked a Conservative member why they ran on that. That Conservative member stood up and said, “I did not believe in it.” That is funny, because that is the second or third Conservative I have heard say they were not running on a price on pollution or a carbon tax. However, they had no problem going along with the plan during the election. They did not say a single word in opposition to it at the time. Now, suddenly, they come in here and think that the buzz phrase of the day is going to be “axe the tax”, and this would bring them into power. That is not the position that somebody who is aspiring to be the leader of this country should be taking, asking what buzzwords happen to work today that would get him into power. I also find it very interesting when we talk about inflation specifically. Today we have seen that Statistics Canada has reported that the inflation in Canada has dropped to 3.8%. I should add that all the economists who were predicting this in advance of today said it would be anywhere between 3.8% and 4.2%. It ended up being on the lower end of that. Conservatives are laughing. Maybe it is time to compare that. I did it earlier, and I can compare it again. Let us compare it to the G7 countries. Again, Canada and the United States are tied for second place in terms of the lowest inflation. I think it is extremely important when we talk about our comparative countries. Canada is heading in the right direction when it comes to inflation, but interestingly enough, when we look at inflation and the different sectors of the economy, transportation is one of the only sectors of the economy contributing to inflation, and it is the biggest contributor. It is interesting because the member for King—Vaughan was up earlier, and I asked her what proposals she would have to reduce the inflationary impact around transportation. Of course, the exact answer that I think everybody in this room would have expected, and I certainly did when I asked the question, was to get rid of the carbon tax, because the carbon tax is contributing to inflation. The reality of the situation is that the carbon tax is not contributing to inflation. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, recently said that the overall impact of the carbon tax to inflation is 0.15%. I believe he was in Alberta at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. We could chalk that up to a rounding error. Now I know the default for my Conservative friends would be to jump up and say that they do not trust Tiff Macklem; they have already made their position on that very clear. I have a whole list, and I will not bother reading it right now, of Conservative MPs who have stood up in this House and invoked the name of Tiff Macklem as the expert when he has all the right things that they want to say at the moment. They cannot pick and choose when they want to use somebody as an expert in the field. It goes without saying for the rest of us in the House, other than Conservatives, that Tiff Macklem is an expert in this field. When he says that the carbon tax contributes 0.15%, I am sorry to the member for King—Vaughan, but getting rid of the carbon tax is not going to be helpful. It is not going to be the solution as it relates to inflation specifically. Once again, we are confronted with a motion by Conservatives. All they are interested in is political games and cheap shots at the Prime Minister.

1632 words

All Topics

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Oct/17/23 1:47:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague always brings high-mindedness and elegance to his debate in this House of Commons. However, today in his speech, he talked about economic and financial numbers again. I know he is way out of his depth whenever it comes to those debate points. He talked about our debt-to-GDP being 14%. Nobody says Canada's debt-to-GDP is 14%. As a matter of fact, he can google it himself. Canada's combined provincial federal debt is $2.1 trillion, and our GDP is about $2.3 trillion. It is almost the same. It is almost 100%, much like the other countries he brought up and referred to. Would he take a lesson in this and say that, yes, it is much higher than 14% and, therefore, must be addressed? Can we do it with this bill?

145 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/17/23 1:48:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, it is not a bill. It is a motion from the opposition calling on the government to, within 10 days, create a plan. It knows full well this motion is not going to pass. This is part of the politics of it. This is what we see from Conservatives time after time. Based on what I have been listening to in this House, it does not appear that any political party is going to vote in favour of this, other than the Conservatives. They do not come into this room with an interest in trying to find consensus or build policy. If the member genuinely believes that, then I suggest he might want to take a lesson in the politics that his leader plays daily, because this is not the game that they are playing. All they want to do is have a gotcha moment that they can put the government into. That is what they are doing, unlike some of the other parties in this House that genuinely come in here, although we have differences, and try to bring forward ideas on policies that we can work on together. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

200 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/17/23 1:49:22 p.m.
Watch

I would remind members that if they have questions and comments, they should not think out loud. They should wait until it is time. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

39 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Oct/17/23 1:49:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry that the member is feeling a little traumatized by the member for Kingston and the Islands’—

24 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/17/23 1:49:38 p.m.
Watch

That is not really a point of order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

17 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Oct/17/23 1:49:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not support the Conservatives' nonsense plan. The Liberals go on and on about how they help people, but I cannot see that in my riding. In fact, I have never seen anything look so bad, with a Conservative government that we just finally got rid of and a federal Liberal government. We have a really bad housing crisis. We have record numbers of overdoses in our city, and people are finding it harder to make ends meet. Who are the Liberals helping? They are helping their corporate buddies in the grocery chains. While New Democrats are calling for a real plan, their plan is to meet with corporate leaders to see if they will do the right thing. Meanwhile, we have to cut coupons. Does the hon. member agree that the Liberals need to do more?

141 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/17/23 1:50:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would say that I have a really good feeling about the way that this federal government will be able to work with the new government, although not of the same political stripe, in her province. I have great faith in that. Perhaps the member has not heard it, but in this House, from this spot, I have been very outspoken about the greed that I see, particularly within the grocery sector. If she has ideas, because I know the NDP has been talking about this quite a bit, I am all ears in listening to them. I will just say one thing about something she said at the beginning of her question that I thought was very interesting: the Conservatives' non-common sense plan. It reminds me of another Conservative politician from Ontario, Mike Harris. He came up with the same slogan of the “common sense revolution”, and we know how that worked out. We know what that did to water throughout the province of Ontario and what ended up happening. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

184 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/17/23 1:51:31 p.m.
Watch

Again I would remind members that if they have thoughts, they should hold on to them until it is time for questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

35 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/17/23 1:51:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to something that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was discussing, and that is the impact of the carbon tax on inflation and the numbers that have been found. I noted, as to the member's comment, that the impact of carbon pricing has been up to two cents a litre, but the impact due to war profiteering from the oil and gas sector has been up to 18¢ a litre. Does he have any comments on that?

88 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/17/23 1:52:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this is a set-up, because the member recently watched a video that I did on this exact topic, but it is true. The carbon tax last year, year over year, contributed two cents per litre on average. The profit margins, or the wholesale profits of the oil and gas sector, was 18¢. Where is the outrage from Conservatives when it comes to those wholesale profits, when they are nine times what the carbon tax is?

84 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/17/23 1:52:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to rise in this place and talk to opposition day motions. As I said before, and will say again, it provides an opportunity for the opposition parties to put forward some level of policy intent and ideals. For Canadians watching at home, opposition day motions are not binding on the government in any way whatsoever, but they allow us to debate the topics that opposition members want to raise. Today, of course, the motion is broadly around fiscal prudence and the idea that the Government of Canada needs to continue to focus on maintaining fiscal balance. I could spend a lot of time going through the text of the motion, but folks at home will know that it is there. However, I want to talk a little bit about some of the concerns I have. I will build upon what the member for Kingston and the Islands said, which is that I feel as though, with these opposition day motions, there is always a poison pill. There are always lines in there that, in my personal view, become disingenuous and are then used as a political tactic. Canadians do not watch this place every single minute of the day; they are busy, and they are working. However, they get highlights, such as clips on social media, to see what we are up to. For example, last week, the Conservative Party put forward an opposition day motion on carbon pricing. There are a number of reasons I voted against it, but, in part, it was because the carbon price motion in question had a lot of elements that I felt were not factually true. The motion talked about such things as removing all elements of carbon pricing and not just adjusting the federal backstop, which I am on record for saying. However, of course, the Conservative Party takes that, without context, and puts together a little montage of images and puts it out, in my mind, to gin up a lot of animosity and misinformation around what does and what does not happen in this place. I suspect today will be the same, as has been said by the member for Kingston and the Islands. I have not been part of the debate all day, but the member had said that the government, the NDP and probably the Bloc will vote against this, and the Conservatives will go out with some fake outrage on social media to drive concern about it. I will start by saying that, of course, the concept of fiscal responsibility is an extremely important one. I was pleased to see this government actually announce on October 3 that the President of the Treasury Board was asking all ministers and all departments to look at ways that they can find cost efficiencies so that there can be an ability to reduce departmental spending without impacting the programs that really matter to Canadians. That is a responsible approach. The Minister of Finance will have a fall economic statement forthcoming in this House, presumably in the next couple of weeks, or certainly before Christmas. It seems to me that the fall economic statement will highlight the finances of the country and how we are striking a very difficult balance between making sure that we have programs that matter for Canadians and at the same time making sure that we manage the debt burdens that the country and the government have. Again, I have chastised some of my Conservative colleagues over the years for being very quick to point to certain elements that they would like to see changed, but they do not highlight a whole lot of the programs that they would cut. In the middle of the pandemic, we would hear one Conservative member stand up in this House and say that the government is not doing enough to support businesses that are being impacted by the pandemic. The next member would stand up, literally on the same question, and say that this government is spending too much money on programs in the middle of the pandemic. In fact, the leader of the official opposition is on record saying that the pandemic-related programs that mattered to small businesses and individuals at a time of great uncertainty were “big fat government” spending. He can tell that to the small businesses in my riding, to the restaurant owners and the people who were supported through a very difficult time, which helped give them a bridge to where we are today. The Conservatives will offer this opposition day motion without any detail on what they would cut in terms of spending. Of course, they will cherry-pick certain elements for political gain, but the question is this: Would they walk back child care if they were to form government? I do not know, but I would love to hear from them on that, and I am sure Canadians would too. Would they walk back environmental progress? Well, we know that is indeed the case, and they have been very clear on that. What about such programs as the dental program, which we have worked as a Parliament to help introduce and which this government has put forward? That program is really going to matter for seniors in Kings—Hants. In fact, I know that my seniors are eagerly awaiting the announcement before Christmas about what those programs could look like. That is not to say that I do not believe in making sure that the government is balanced in terms of its spending. In fact, in this House, any time I get the chance to do so, I am up on my feet talking about it. What is not recognized in the text of this opposition day motion is that Canada has one of the best debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. Our deficit size in relation to G7 countries is also one of the best. That is never mentioned from the opposition benches. I know there are challenges right now on affordability. In the House, the member for York—Simcoe said we cannot eat a AAA credit rating. I guess he was saying people cannot eat AAA. We could eat a AAA steak, but we are trying to balance a credible pathway on finances versus delivering for Canadians. There are a couple things I think are important. The text of the motion says that in order to try to avoid future interest rate increases, the government needs to introduce a balanced budget essentially by October 25. The government is going to introduce its fall economic statement, and it will talk about those things in the days ahead. Let us make no mistake about the interest rate increases we are seeing. The Conservative Party would like to suggest they have to do with government spending, and yes, that may play a marginal part. However, there is a war in Ukraine. There is a war in Israel and the Palestinian territories. There are factors like climate change-related events and demographics. A lot has happened around the world that is actually driving interest rates. I think, when having an intellectually informed policy debate about interest rates and how they correlate to bringing down consumer spending when there are broader events, there is a lot to be said.

1228 words

Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)

Oct/17/23 2:00:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, October 17 is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. This day is a moment to reflect on the amazing strides we have made as a world in reducing poverty, but also to recognize that there is still much to do. Between 1990 and 2014, the world made remarkable progress, with Canada being a leader in helping more than a billion people to move out of extreme poverty. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine have caused the cost of food to skyrocket throughout the world, putting 150 million people on the verge of returning to extreme poverty. Canada has long been a leader in the fight to eliminate global poverty and we are well positioned to continue that leadership. I would like to thank Results Canada, a non-profit agency with over 500 volunteers across the country, for its more than 35 years of work to end extreme poverty. Let us continue together to explore ways to eradicate poverty in Canada and around the world.

174 words