44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 18, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/18/24 10:20:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after nine years and nine deficit budgets, the Prime Minister has doubled the national debt. He has added more to our debt than all the other prime ministers combined.
He has doubled the cost of housing and forced two million people to rely on food banks. Now, he is presenting a budget with $50 billion in additional inflationary spending, while repeating the same election promises he has failed to keep for a decade. That is why this budget and this Prime Minister are not worth the cost. We will be voting against this budget to show the government that we have lost confidence in it.
The Conservative Party has a common-sense plan: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Before I get into my common-sense plan, I would like to pay the Minister of Finance a compliment for asking Canada’s wealthiest some very good questions. She said, “I would like to ask Canada's 1%, Canada's 0.1%, to consider this: What kind of country do they want to live in?”
First, it bears mentioning that the minister and her leader do recognize that Canada's 0.1% are doing very well indeed after nine years of this Liberal government. They have benefited from enormous corporate handouts and grants—the biggest in the history of our country, in fact. They have received massive loan guarantees that protect them against losses from poor investments, which means that working class Canadians are left holding the bag. Millionaire businessmen like the GC Strategies contractors are surely part of the wealthiest 0.1% thanks to the gifts given them by this Prime Minister, such as the 100% increase in the number of outside contracts. In addition, by printing $600 billion of new money, this government made billionaires even richer. Lastly, the Prime Minister is a member of the 0.1%, since he inherited millions of dollars from his grandfather and placed the money in a trust that shelters it from taxes and protects it, just like those billionaires who invite him to their private island in the Caribbean. It was therefore a very good idea to put this question to the wealthiest 0.1% who are doing better than ever after nine years under this prime minister.
I am going to quote other questions that the minister asked them, including the following: “Do they want to live in a country where we can tell the size of one's paycheque by their smile?” After nine years of rising taxes, inflation and interest rates, Canadians are no longer smiling when they look at their paycheque, because it is disappearing. After nine years, Canada has the lowest personal income growth of any G7 country. Our GDP per capita is down from what it was five years ago. People have no reason to smile. Their paycheque does not buy them as much food or cover as much of their housing as it did nine years ago.
The minister also asked, “Do they want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry?” Obviously, the answer is no. However, that is the reality after nine years of this Prime Minister. According to the documents published by his own government, the Prime Minister admits that nearly one in four children go to school without food every day. After nine years of this Prime Minister, who taxes the farmers who produce our food and the truckers who deliver our food, a quarter of all children do not have enough to eat. We see today in the budget a promise to feed them. That promise was made in 2021, three years ago. How many meals have been provided since? Not a single one has been provided. After nine years of this Prime Minister, our children are going hungry.
The minister also asked, “Do they want to live in a country where the only young Canadians who can buy their own homes are those with parents who can help with the down payment?” That is the country we live in now, after nine years of this Prime Minister.
700 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 11:38:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know that Canadians are going to be footing the bill from this massive Liberal spending. We are now going to be paying more in debt servicing charges than we pay on health care. How does the hon. Leader of the Opposition propose that we fix the budget?
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 11:38:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we will fix the budget with a dollar-for-dollar law and run our finances the way single moms and small businesses run their finances, which is by finding an equal amount of savings for every new expenditure. That is the scarcity with which every single creature in the universe must live, except for the politician, who simply externalizes the scarcity through more inflation, more debt and more taxes for everybody else.
By internalizing the scarcity within the operations of government, we will force the bureaucrats and politicians to go hunting in their own backyard for savings, rather than forcing more austerity on Canadian families and entrepreneurs through higher taxes. It is common sense. It is how we will balance the budget to bring home lower prices, lower inflation and lower interest rates.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:07:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nepean for his multi-pronged question.
First, we recognize that the federal debt-to-GDP ratio is among the best, except that goes back to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. Members will recall that, in the 1990s, the federal government solved its debt problem by increasing the fiscal imbalance, or in other words, by reducing transfers to the provinces. The provinces are struggling because the federal government chose to increase the fiscal imbalance rather than dealing with it.
When it comes to the various sectors of the economy, I would remind the member that the Minister of Innovation finally promised an aerospace policy. Canada is the only country with an aerospace industry that does not have such a policy. Is there anything about that in the budget? No. There is zip, zero, zilch.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:12:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his quasi-scientific speech about the budget. I truly enjoyed it.
I know he wants to get to the bottom of things and uncover the truth. Here is what I am especially curious about. We know Ottawa promises a lot of money, but that money is never spent because it does not take regional realities into account. Funding for housing does not reflect the reality of regions where conditions differ from those of the greater Toronto area. It is the same thing with indigenous peoples: Year after year, there is so much money that goes back into the treasury when that money should be going into the pockets of those who need it, so they can do things such as build housing.
In my colleague's opinion, how does that impact budgets and the real deficit? When it comes to a challenge as big as housing, how could Quebec do better than Ottawa if it were independent?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:35:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for his speech and presentation.
Our political party's vision often closely aligns with his own party's. That said, I question how the NDP can support the fact that seniors have not had a substantial increase in their purchasing power through old age security for the past 15 years. The New Democrats have not shown a real willingness to reflect and move forward on this issue even though the Bloc Québécois has tabled a bill and has been demanding it for a very long time.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks. I know what he is going to say. He is going to say that they have dental insurance and pharmacare. However, we have to realize that seniors do not just need dental care and medication, they also need greater purchasing power to afford life's basic necessities. How is my colleague willing to support this budget when it has no regard for seniors?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:41:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the powerful voice she brings to the House, not only on behalf of people in her constituency but on behalf of indigenous, Métis and Inuit people, and people representing many minority and marginalized communities in the country.
I also want to take a moment to thank her for her persistent and effective work on the red dress alert, which I also note received a paltry amount of money in this budget, less than $2 million, if I am not mistaken. This ought to be implemented immediately and fully financed and resourced. The red dress alert is an incredibly important precautionary and preventative measure than can perhaps warn our communities to prevent an indigenous woman or girl or anybody else who is at risk in those communities from being hurt or injured.
To the larger question, we have not had a chance yet to analyze the budget. As I said, the need for justice and reconciliation, the debt we owe to indigenous people, has yet to be repaid. This budget does not come anywhere close to the kinds of investments that are needed to ensure indigenous people can fully achieve their potential and their rights. The NDP is going to continue to press the government for that.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:43:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an opportunity for us to say, and we are all parliamentarians here, that we have a duty to our constituents to elevate debate in the House and to speak accurately. Every time the Conservatives call it a coalition government or say we have been in power for nine years when those things are just not true does a disservice to this institution and it confuses Canadians and our democracy, and it needs to stop.
We will continue to analyze the budget, and we will come out with our position on it in due course. It is 416 pages long, and there are a lot of positive things in there, such as pharmacare, a school nutrition program—
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague praising the budget, but I would rather talk about the people who were completely overlooked in this budget. I would even say that it adds insult to injury.
Not only did the government still not budget for the increase in old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74, as urgently called for by the Bloc Québécois in a pre-budget request, not only did it fail to allocate funding for Bill C-319, but there is nothing for seniors.
No, I do not want to hear about measures for housing. These measures for housing are not aimed specifically at seniors. Seniors have specific requests. There is nothing in this budget for them. They have been overlooked. This only adds insult to injury.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:56:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as always, my colleague's speech was interesting and very informative. I know of his great advocacy in the areas of international trade, artificial intelligence and so on, and I appreciate that from him.
I know that Montreal is a hub for innovation in artificial intelligence and that there are other hubs across the country. Could the member provide some examples of how our budget would help these hubs develop further?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 1:54:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I had the joy of listening to my colleague one more time. He spoke about a different speech than the one he was giving, because he did not seem to have much to say about the budget. He only had criticisms of other things that were said on this side of the House about the budget. It is a critique of a critique.
I wonder if there is anything in the budget that the member actually knows about and whether he could speak positively about in the House of Commons.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 1:55:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I commend the efforts around the House to try to win the game, but fortunately the Bloc Québécois is here. I hope that there will be even more of us here after the next election, in the next Parliament, in order to control the different extremes on these two sides of the House.
Now, I would like to address my colleague. We are going to have to redefine affordable housing because in the budget we have just been given, I see that, once again, there is nothing, zero, nada, for seniors. For those who are poor and have not gotten significant indexing of the old age security pension in 15 years, they are practically going to need to be given affordable housing. Seniors no longer have anything to live on and they are unable to adapt. They either need to be housed or they need to be fed.
I would like my colleague to talk to us about our seniors in the context of this budget.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:11:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, budget 2024 has dropped. The reviews are in, and I am sure NDP members and Liberals are excited. Let us see what people have had to say.
Former finance minister Bill Morneau said that aspects of this budget were “clearly a negative to our long-term goal, which is growth in the economy, productive growth and investments.” However, he is just a random Liberal.
Let us hear what the NDP had to say; I am sure the New Democrats are excited. Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair said, “It fell way short”, that it really would be “giving a sock in the jaw to a lot of small business people, entrepreneurs, artisans” and that it was not actually going after “the super rich”; it was going after “super ordinary Canadians”.
The Conservatives agree. This budget should have been about growth and instead it is more failure and more tax and spend. The good news is that it was not like this before the Prime Minister and it will not be after him. Common-sense Conservatives have a common-sense plan. Let us bring it home.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. This year, Canadians will spend over $46 billion to service the Prime Minister's debt, but the Prime Minister's costly coalition does not stop there. On April 1, the NDP-Liberals increased the federal carbon tax by 23%. This increase affects the cost of living for all Canadians, including by a major increase in gasoline prices. This Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost.
It is not just Liberals like David Dodge and Bill Morneau who think the Prime Minister's spending is out of control; former finance minister John Manley said that his spending balloons inflation and interest rates.
Conservatives will vote non-confidence in this budget unless the Liberals cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down inflation and lower interest rates. For every new dollar spent, the government must find a dollar in savings, and it must immediately pass Bill C-234, in its original form, to axe the tax on farmers and food.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:24:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a number for him: nine. Nine years of this Liberal government means nine years of inflationary policies, nine years of wasting Canadians' money, nine years of recklessness and indifference towards them. It means money everywhere except in the pockets of Canadians. It means criminals everywhere except in prison. It means affordable rent everywhere except in Canada. Why are so many things broken? The answer is very simple and very clear. It is because of this Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost.
Will he put an end to the budget mess and give a little more thought to the Canadians who cannot even put a roof over their heads because of him?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:26:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois tells us that housing is important. Excellent, because it is in the budget. It tells us that helping young people is important. That is good too, because it is also in the budget. Seniors are just as important to the Bloc Québécois. Well, they are also in the budget, except that the Bloc Québécois will do as their Conservative colleagues, their good friends, have done, and vote against the budget.
They need to walk the talk.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:27:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the ultimate threat of this budget is its electioneering. The Liberals' priority is not housing, it is getting re-elected. Numbers do not lie. If housing was a priority to them, they would not have budgeted 97% of the billion dollars allocated to accelerating the construction of apartments for after the election. Nor would they have budgeted 91% of the new Canadian infrastructure funding for after the election. If housing was a priority to them, they would hand out the money now, not after the election.
Is that not their way of saying that if people do not vote Liberal, they will not get one penny?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:44:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will need to have someone explain to me why they put that in the budget. I do not really understand.
In any case, one thing is certain, we are witnessing a clash of values here. While the Minister of Justice intends to use Quebeckers' money to fund the challenge to Quebec's state secularism law, the Liberals are thinking of incorporating more religion into Canadian law.
Again, Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress said that Islamic mortgages are another financial front of the Islamist movement. Those are serious words.
Will the government admit that it is not defending secularism, but rather putting more and more religion into the affairs of state?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:58:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget does not just mark the end of respect for jurisdictions. It also marks the end of competent policy management.
Ottawa is imposing its priorities everywhere, without even knowing whether that is a good idea. It is calling for the construction of 40-storey apartment buildings next to schools in neighbourhoods where it has never set foot. It is meddling in the training of construction workers without knowing anything about that. It is imposing long-term care standards for seniors that it has never taken care of.
Why not let the competent people handle the files that fall under their jurisdiction?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:58:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois should show a bit of courage and tell us which aspect of the budget they are opposed to.
Are they against investments in housing? Are they against the fact that we are going to make sure that children are not going to school hungry? Are they against investments to help our municipalities and regions? What aspects of the budget are they opposed to? They should at least have the courage to tell us.
For now, they are not saying what they do not like. All they are doing is acting extra friendly. They are playing nice. They do not have the courage to tell us what they are opposed to, but they are still going to vote against the budget.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
