SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 302 - Apr/18/24

Apr/18/24 11:55:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for actively listening to my speech—

16 words

Apr/18/24 11:56:01 a.m.
Watch

I would like to make sure the hon. member for Joliette has the attention of all members present in the House. Since that is now the case, the hon. member for Joliette may continue.

34 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 11:56:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the erosion of Quebec's autonomy, and of Quebeckers' ability to make their own choices, is a strong trend. I quoted the Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Canada-wide research group based in Ottawa, which found last June that “the present trend is toward a more directive use of the spending power”, and that “the degree of federal-provincial collaboration in defining policy challenges has declined”. It went on to say, “Partnerships now seem to be conditional on a province accepting the federal government's policy vision”. The most recent budget gives more weight to their findings. All of this is happening in a context where Ottawa is doing a very poor job handling areas under its own jurisdiction, spending more money without making sure that it is being effective or getting results, and cutting its transfers to the provinces while piling on conditions and delaying the payment of the amounts it promised. The example that comes to mind here again is health transfers. Their increase is six times lower than anticipated, and they come with conditions that have led to a power struggle. The result is that it is taking longer for the money to be paid out. There are also unacceptable delays when it comes to infrastructure and housing programs. It takes years for an agreement to be reached and for the approved money to be paid out because Ottawa is once again interfering. I thank know-it-all Ottawa for that. Ottawa is behaving this way because it has the upper hand as a result of the ongoing fiscal imbalance. In a federation, a fiscal imbalance occurs when one level of government collects more taxes than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the other level is unable to finance its own needs independently. In Canada, there is a serious fiscal imbalance to the detriment of Quebec and the provinces. The Parliamentary Budget Officer repeats it year after year: Ultimately, provincial finances are not sustainable. It is not just Quebec; all of the provinces are unsustainable. Provincial status is just not viable. The fiscal imbalance is causing major problems that are limiting the government's ability to address the many challenges it faces. These problems are numerous, but they fall into three categories. First, by bringing in more revenue than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, Ottawa is not making an effort to manage its own affairs properly. The federal government is notoriously inefficient and everything costs more than it should—just think of the ArriveCAN scandal. I have two examples that illustrate the magnitude of the discrepancy. It costs the federal government two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it costs the Quebec government to process a social assistance claim. It costs the federal government four times more to issue a passport than it costs the Quebec government to issue a driver's licence. Everything costs more. Second, Ottawa uses its fiscal room to interfere in areas that are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces under the Constitution. These intrusions blur the division of powers, make it less coherent, while undermining our autonomy. The jurisdictional overlap does nothing for efficiency. It only promotes centralization in Ottawa. There is a duplication of efforts with the new dental insurance. The same is true for the two tax returns. There is one too many, and that is the one that is collected by this level of government. Finally, with Ottawa indirectly controlling the purse strings of the Government of Quebec and the governments of the other Canadian provinces, the capacity of the Quebec government to fully assume its responsibilities is diminished. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's observation is clear: The provinces will no longer be sustainable. I would add that they are at risk of collapsing, while the federal government's fiscal room will increase considerably. This continued interference has led to an unprecedented centralization of power in Ottawa, which will take away the Quebec people's ability to control their development according to their needs, strengths, characteristics and wishes. In Canada, the status quo does not exist. The third autonomist way that lies between our sovereignty and our assimilation in which Quebec would be respected is constantly under attack by the federal government, no matter which party is in power. The status quo is actually weakening the Quebec National Assembly in favour of Ottawa. However, given the current context of uncertainty and crises, the fiscal imbalance must be addressed. The main way to achieve that is for the federal government to stop interfering and give Quebec the automatic right to opt out with full compensation. The many crises we are experiencing bring with them many challenges. We can come out stronger or weaker. The repeated crises we have experienced over the past four years have brought to light many problems. First, COVID-19 showed that our health care system has been weakened by the federal government's chronic underfunding. Meanwhile, the serious flaws in the EI system forced the introduction of a series of costly programs that were hastily thrown together. The sudden reopening of the economy exposed other problems: the housing shortage, the labour shortage exacerbated by the aging population and the considerable fragility of our manufacturing sector. That is not to mention all the problems caused by inflation. The government has not taken any of these fundamental issues seriously. We are calling on the government to stop interfering in jurisdictions that do not belong to it and to include a permanent and automatic mechanism for Quebec to opt out with full compensation everywhere the federal government has interfered. We demand that the federal government immediately and unconditionally transfer the voted amounts that are supposed to be transferred to Quebec. We are also calling on Ottawa to immediately reimburse the Government of Quebec for costs incurred to welcome asylum seekers. Quebec has a very clear vision of what to do to deal with the current challenges effectively. The solution is simple, but it requires more financial resources for Quebec. The government must address the fiscal imbalance by increasing federal transfers to ensure a fairer and more equitable redistribution. We can shape our future by building on Quebec's strengths, strengths that will become increasingly important in the economy of the future. Interference always costs more, always takes longer and never works as well as respecting jurisdiction. Interference will end once we have full independence. The 21st century belongs to Quebec. This is the century of innovation, advanced technologies and green technologies that balance wealth creation with ecology. We have an abundance of creativity in all areas, and they need support. This is the century of renewable energy and sustainable development. We have everything it takes—water, wind, forests and know-how—to become world leaders, if Ottawa stops pumping billions of dollars into fossil fuels. Canada's oil and gas model and Quebec's renewable and sustainable model are incompatible. This is the century of local farm distribution channels, where our production primarily serves to feed our population in a world of less fluid trade networks. We have to preserve agricultural diversification despite the current challenges created by an unpredictable global environment and climate change. However, this is also a century of social tension, where growing inequality is extinguishing the hope of a brighter future across the western world. Our government must have the means to preserve social cohesion, especially considering the urgent challenges posed by the housing crisis and rising property prices. Maintaining the purchasing power of seniors is also imperative, considering the disastrous economic consequences that would result from their impoverishment amid an aging population. In conclusion, this budget comes at a time when the needs are great and many, but the resources are not unlimited. The only way for Ottawa to deal with that is to take care of its own responsibilities properly. A rational and well targeted use of resources will allow us to avoid austerity measures left and right that will cause everyone to suffer. That is the opposite of what we have before us in this budget. That is why, seconded by the member for Saint-Jean, I move the following amendment to the amendment. That the amendment be amended by replacing paragraphs (a) and (b) with the following: (a) uphold the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and to grant Quebec and the provinces a right to opt out with full compensation;

1426 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/18/24 12:05:19 p.m.
Watch

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

8 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Apr/18/24 12:05:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the fiscal issues. I would like to remind him that Canada has the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio and lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among all the G7 countries. In fact, Canada not only has a AAA credit rating, but it is also one of only two G7 countries that has a AAA rating from two of the three independent credit agencies. Quebec has shown the solid move from the carbon-heavy economy to a clean economy. Quebec has very advanced manufacturing and knowledge-based companies. Does the member not recognize the importance this budget has given to knowledge-based companies and specifically how it would help Quebec companies, for example in artificial intelligence, with a $2-billion fund for the AI compute access fund, $200 million for artificial intelligence start-ups, and help for crucial sectors, such as agriculture, health care and manufacturing, to adopt artificial intelligence?

154 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

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

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Apr/18/24 12:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, some members of the Bloc Québécois are fairly sensible, but I would like to know how the Bloc Québécois can talk out of both sides of its mouth. When the NDP votes with the minority government, the Bloc Québécois votes against it. When the NDP votes against the Liberal minority government, the Bloc Québécois votes with it. The Bloc Québécois is actually keeping the Liberal minority government in power. How can my colleague talk out of both sides of his mouth? I would like to hear his thoughts on that because the Bloc Québécois is being inconsistent. Unfortunately, I have to say that the Bloc Québécois does not really represent the interests of Quebec.

144 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 12:08:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it will be up to Quebeckers to decide who represents them in the next election, as they have done in every other election. That is how it works. We set a very clear criterion to determine whether we vote with or against the government: When it is good for Quebec, we vote in favour, and when it is not good for Quebec, we vote against. It is that simple. Between the two, the Bloc Québécois always tries to improve the proposals to better meet Quebec’s needs. Unlike the Conservatives, we are not always against the government. We do not spend our time denouncing the carbon tax, which does not apply to Quebec. We see whether it is good for Quebec. If so, we are in favour; if not, we are against. This budget is bad for Quebec’s economy and does not meet Quebec’s major needs. We will therefore vote against it. It is clear, and it is how we do things.

176 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Apr/18/24 12:09:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who I am pleased to serve with on the finance committee, spoke about jurisdiction in pharmacare. The Canada pharmacare legislation currently before the House would work exactly as the Canada Health Act does. It would offer federal money to every province that agrees to deliver diabetes-class and contraception drugs free to the citizens of their provinces through the single-payer public system. No province would be forced to participate. If the province wants to participate, they would get the money and deliver it just like any other medical service through the public health care system, just like Quebec does with all the other services. In 2016, the Union des consommateur of Quebec made a written submission to the Standing Committee on Health on pharmacare. It said: The explosive rise in spending on prescription drugs in Canada requires immediate action...the most effective solution would be to adopt a universal public pharmacare program. We hope the federal government will act on this issue and assure you of our full cooperation. Does my hon. colleague not agree that Québécois deserve to have access to free diabetes medication and pharmaceuticals if 100% of it is being paid by the federal government, just like every other medical service that is available in Quebec?

219 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 12:11:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my new colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. It will be a pleasure to work with him, I am sure. Obviously, there are many major health care needs. Yes, I would like to know that everyone who needs medication can get it. Quebec has a partial prescription drug insurance plan; it has limited coverage for people who do not have access to private insurance. Yes, the price of prescription drugs is skyrocketing and it is quite the challenge. The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to respect areas of jurisdiction. For example, health care falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The role of the federal government is to finance health care. To meet its commitments in funding health care, the federal government needs to give six times more than it is currently giving. This shortfall means that Quebec and the provinces do not have enough resources to offer proper health care services, which should include universal pharmacare. On one hand, the federal government is underfunding the health care sector by not fulfilling its role; on the other hand, it is encroaching on our areas of jurisdiction. What are the consequences? Redundancy and a top-to-bottom vision of know-it-all Ottawa that does not reflect reality. If Quebec is given the right to opt out with full compensation and no strings attached in order to enhance its prescription drug insurance program or manage funding in its health care sector as it sees fit, we will support the budget. We have always said that what we do not want is to see the federal government usurp spending powers. Everything that is done here is more expensive. It is bureaucratic and out of touch with the reality of Canadians. There is not even a proposal to align with Quebec’s prescription drug insurance plan. The same goes for dental care. There is not even a proposal to align with the existing public insurance plan for children. That is being turned over to Sun Life; that is a $2-billion management fund that will enable the insurer to line its pockets instead of providing services to Canadians. That is Ottawa, right there. That is why we want Quebec to make its own choices.

387 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

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

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Apr/18/24 12:13:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for sharing his outlook with us. I agree with him completely. Before I talk about housing, I will speak to infrastructure. The municipalities are asking us whether Ottawa is finally going to renew the gas tax and Quebec's contribution program, or TECQ, and distribute the funds, with no strings attached, on a per capita basis. When the dollars get out the door, municipalities can get projects done quickly. In the recent budget, Ottawa is proposing infrastructure programs that require agreements because interference is at issue. It takes one, two, three or four years to reach an agreement, and years more before the funds are disbursed. The needs are there, but the money is not. It is the same thing when it comes to housing. With regard to the rapid housing initiative, or RHI, Ottawa let Quebec choose which housing it wants to fund. The money was allocated quickly. In all of the other programs, it takes years for Quebec to get a single penny, for a single shovel of dirt to be turned. The government is passing the buck. Money that we voted on, money paid by Quebec taxpayers is being held up here in Ottawa for ideological and bureaucratic reasons. It is the same thing for indigenous people. Once again, the money is there in the budget, but at the end of every fiscal year, the money has not been spent. That is again because of bureaucratic management. Needs are growing and the money was approved, but it is not being spent. That needs to change. We need to tell Ottawa to cut the red tape and to stop creating obstacles by dictating conditions. Local governments are the ones that know what is good and where the needs are. The federal government needs to transfer the money and get out of the way.

315 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Apr/18/24 12:15:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to budget 2024 and to deliver my first speech in the House as the shadow minister of finance for the New Democratic Party of Canada. I am deeply honoured to assume this important position, and as I do so, I am reminded of the core economic objectives of a progressive political party in a modern democracy, the principles that have underpinned impressive results in many social democratic countries around the globe. These include the following: to build a strong domestic economy that works for all citizens, not just the privileged; to harness national assets for the collective good while creating a thriving market that produces quality goods and services; to respect both those who utilize their entrepreneurial talents and the workers whose skills and energy are essential to their realization; to develop our resources in an intelligent, sustainable and responsible manner, respecting both future generations and our planet, which, after all, are the foundation of all economic activity; to incentivize productive activity, to reward hard work, to distribute wealth fairly and to take care of those who, through no fault of their own, need our assistance; and to advance equality and to create the conditions necessary for everyone to have a full and fair opportunity to realize their potential to contribute and to succeed. The document under debate serves as a crucial reminder of what a national government can do to help realize these goals, both in its observance and in its breach. It also shows what an effective opposition can achieve when we act maturely and work to fix what is broken, instead of engaging in division and pessimism. Although conflict may appear expedient to those politicians who want to exploit feelings of frustration and anger, it does not get results for people, and it weakens our institutions and democracy. As Jack Layton would often remind us, the opposition's job is not only to oppose, but also to propose. This budget is product of applying this approach. In contrast to the other opposition parties in the House, the NDP has worked to deliver tangible benefits for Canadians. In this budget alone, Canada's New Democrats have compelled the Liberal government to move in a number of important, substantive and positive directions. These include the following, which the NDP has championed and has fought for, in some cases for decades: to build more homes, to preserve existing affordable housing and to protect renters, helping address one of the most foundational issues in society; to set the foundation for universal public pharmacare, starting with contraception and diabetes medications and devices, helping millions of Canadians and starting us well on the path to comprehensive drug coverage for all; to establish the very first national school food program, helping children learn and stay healthy while providing real relief to families hurt by high food prices; and to reverse damaging cuts to indigenous services, an area that cries out for resources and for reconciliation. Further, these also include the following: to invest in accessible, high-quality, non-profit child care, a vital social support to families, and to women in particular; to increase funding for pure and applied research and to better support Canada's students, keys to Canada's productivity and innovation; to increase the capital gains tax on the wealthiest 1%, a measure that would return some $19 billion to the treasury over the next five years from the wealthiest 1% in Canada; to improve Via Rail capacity, helping connect communities and helping the environment; to double the volunteer firefighters' and the search and rescue volunteers' tax credits; and to create a dedicated youth mental health fund, continuing to move this critical area into our mainstream health care system. These measures would provide urgent relief for millions of Canadians, and make no mistake, they would not have happened without the pressure and the advocacy of every NDP member in the House. However, it is crucial to emphasize that while these achievements illustrate in part what a New Democrat government could accomplish, the current budget does not fully reflect the party's vision. This is the result of a major difference between the NDP and the two old-guard establishment parties. New Democrats see government as a profoundly important instrument of public good, as something that should stand firmly with and for people, not private powerful interests. We see it as a positive force that can provide resources collectively that individuals alone cannot, that can build institutions of opportunity available to all, regardless of personal wealth and station. We alone see the vital interconnectedness of social, economic and environmental justice. In contrast, the Conservatives treat government with suspicion; it is to be feared, scorned, reduced and marginalized. The Liberals, for their part, are beholden to crippling incrementalism, afraid to take bold action, even in the face of great social need or clear evidence. More to the point today, the Conservatives identify an economic crisis but deny that there is a climate one. The Liberals acknowledge a climate crisis but fail to fully recognize an economic one. Only Canada's New Democrats firmly understand that Canada faces both an economic crisis and a climate crisis. We stand alone in the understanding that these crises are intertwined and that we will make real progress only by successfully addressing both. The context for this budget is clear. The reality is that millions of Canadians are grappling with the rising costs of living and are struggling to pay for essentials like food and housing. At the same time, forest fires lay waste to entire towns; droughts threaten our food supply; floods destroy our communities; unprecedented heatwaves claim the lives of our elders; and children are confined indoors when the air is unfit to breathe. While politicians, like the Conservatives, who are in denial or who are ignorant of these realizations, point to the costs of dealing with these crises, they fail to recognize the far more expensive price of not dealing with them. The result is that Canada is falling behind in meeting our climate commitments and in the need to pivot to a sustainable economy that works for all Canadians. While this budget promises considerable progress in a number of areas, progress that will depend on real implementation, a perennial shortcoming of the current government it must be noted, it also falls short in making the necessary investments and the policy changes that the current crises demand. I will highlight housing. There are many issues in politics, but some are foundational, existential even. Housing is one of these. Housing is not just a commodity, but also a necessity. It anchors us in community and connects us with family, neighbours, friends, school, work and services. However, because of decades of successive Liberal and Conservative government policy failures, encampments are expanding across the country at record levels in both urban and rural areas. The federal housing advocate has called this a “life and death crisis”. The financialization of housing has left one-third of all seniors housing in Canada in the hands of institutional investors, along with 30% of purpose-built rental buildings. Young people are shut out of the housing market, and renters are losing hope of ever owning a home. Mortgage and rent payments are devouring an unsustainable share of people's incomes. The Office of the Federal Housing Advocate recently released an analysis of Canada's housing supply shortage, which found that we are missing 4.5 million homes that are affordable to people in housing need. International evidence demonstrates that direct financing to scale up non-market housing, such as co-operative, non-profit and public housing, is the most efficient and effective way to address this shortfall, yet the Liberal government continues to rely heavily on the for-profit housing industry to fix the problem. This does not mean that the private market has no role in housing construction; instead, it underscores the importance of ensuring that public investments yield tangible public benefits and prioritizes housing solutions that truly serve the needs of our communities. It is important to note that public spending on non-market housing is anti-inflationary. It expands supply and puts downward pressure on prices across the housing market. Moreover, if public spending is offset by measured, fair tax increases, the net effect on aggregate demand remains neutral. This budget makes a lot of promises about housing, which if carried out will go a long way in helping meet our goals. However, the problem is that we have heard this before. In 2017, the Prime Minister announced a $40 billion national housing strategy, saying that it was, “a robust, comprehensive, life-changing plan to help Canadians get into homes, and stay there.” Seven years later, what Canadians have really experienced is a robust, comprehensive and life-changing housing crisis, one in which rent and home prices have doubled. Home ownership is further away than ever, and we have lost 11 units of affordable housing for every one built. While New Democrats support the investments announced in this budget, the real test will be ensuring they are realized. We will do our part to monitor and to press for that to happen. I must say a few words about several weaknesses in this budget. The allocation of a paltry $200 a month for the Canada disability benefit for Canadians living with disabilities is beyond deficient. It is insulting. It is far below what is necessary to lift these citizens out of poverty. Combined with provincial disability programs, it fails to meet even this government's own assessment of subsistence at $2,000 per month when it set the CERB amount during COVID. This is unacceptable and New Democrats call for it to be raised substantially and immediately. This budget aims to slash 5,000 public service jobs through attrition. This is short-sighted and wrong. We need our public servants to deliver the programs Canadians rely on. We all recall how vital our civil servants were during COVID, delivering the benefits we desperately needed when we were in a national crisis. What we ought to slash is the use of government outsourcing and private consultants, something that is far more costly and, in many cases, scandalously wasteful. We need only look at this government's outrageous expenditure of $60 million to produce the ArriveCAN app, which proved unreliable and of questionable utility, something that should have been produced for, at most, one-tenth that cost. This budget is a missed opportunity to address the gaping tax unfairness and imbalance that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have created in Canada. For decades, both old-guard parties slashed corporate taxes, making individual working and middle-class Canadians increasingly shoulder the cost of government. Today, Canada has one of the lowest rates of corporate taxes in the OECD, ranking 33rd of 38 countries. Our federal corporate tax rate of 15% is over 5% less than the United States, and President Biden recently announced his intention to raise U.S. corporate tax rates by some 7%. The upshot is that we could and should implement a prudent and measured increase as well, providing billions of dollars of revenue for programs Canadians need and reducing our deficit while remaining competitive among our peers. This budget also missed a clear opportunity to implement a tax on windfall oil and gas profits. While Canadians were suffering from the after-effects of the pandemic, in 2022 oil and gas extraction companies in Canada made a record-breaking $63 billion in profits. Although data for 2023 has not yet been published, it is shaping up to the be the second-most profitable year in the history of the oil patch. The 2022 federal budget introduced a one-time tax of 15% on profits above $1 billion for banks and insurance companies. The PBO report found that extending the tax to the oil and gas sector could generate $4.2 billion in revenue over five years. New Democrats think that this is a policy measure that is eminently warranted. I would like to also point out the lack of sufficient emphasis in this budget when it comes to the climate crisis. We believe that this is the most important issue facing our planet, another truly existential issue. While addressing it will take concerted global action, Canada must do its part. Although the budget has a number of laudable steps in this direction, including money for the transition to zero-emission vehicles and heat pump retrofits, in our view it should go much farther and faster if we are to meet our international commitments and obligations to future generations of Canadians. Finally, I would like to address the important discussion in Canada regarding productivity. The statistics on productivity levels in Canada are indeed concerning. The Bank of Canada's senior deputy governor recently noted that the need to improve productivity has reached an emergency level in this country, but we do need to analyze and interpret the numbers cautiously. We are clearly still experiencing the after-effects of the pandemic and the unprecedented shocks it imposed on our economy, integrated supply chains and our labour market. We must be careful not to give credence to outdated and offensive ideas that the best way to improve productivity is to blame or put the burden on workers, compelling them to work harder, faster, longer and for less money. A factor that is far more important to address in the productivity problem is the ongoing weakness of business capital spending in Canada. Spending on machinery and equipment by businesses and on R and D and innovation has been falling as a share of GDP for many years, dating back, in fact, to the large corporate tax cuts Paul Martin introduced at the turn of this century. That is an ironic fact, since it was argued, at the time, that corporate tax cuts would spur more business investment, not less. However, the truth is that even with rapid job creation and population growth, business capital investment has not kept up. To address this, the New Democrats believe the federal government must implement strategies that are more effective at increasing capital investment and innovation in Canada, rather than the tired, old, trickle-down theories, like tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, that clearly have not worked. Other countries, like those in northern Europe and east Asia, have shown it is possible to combine strong investment and technology with strong labour standards and public programs. Canadian workers are skilled and productive. In fact, by some measures, our workforce is the best trained of any OECD country. To put those skills to work to their full potential, workers need good, secure and stable jobs, with access to proper machinery and equipment, lifelong training and the opportunity to earn better wages along with their productivity so that they can share in the wealth their talents and skills create. That is why New Democrats support better vocational training, stronger labour standards and unions that can be active partners in technological change, training, safety and job quality. To conclude, allow me to draw a clear distinction between the diverging economic paths that lie ahead for our country. The Conservatives would prioritize corporate interests, even at the expense of ordinary Canadians. If they have their way, essential services will suffer. There will be no dental care, no pharmacare, no renter protections, no investments in affordable housing or child care, and no school food programs for our children. Under the Liberals' watch, Canadians have been left grappling and struggling with rising costs, while big corporations and wealthy CEOs are thriving. It is a stark contrast. The privileged few prosper, while the majority struggle to make ends meet. That is unconscionable in a country as wealthy as Canada. The affordability crisis has reached a breaking point, yet the Liberal government still hesitates to take decisive action. It only acts when pushed by the NDP. It took the New Democrats to force its hand in budget 2024 to push for policies that genuinely benefit people. Our vision extends beyond the present to a future where our federal government champions affordability, equity and the well-being of every family. It would be a Canada where no one is left behind, where accessible health care, housing and opportunity for all are not mere aspirations, but fundamental rights and the reality. Together, we know we can build a Canada that thrives on fairness, compassion and shared prosperity. Do not ever let them say it cannot be done.

2772 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Apr/18/24 12:33:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about Canada's ranking among OECD countries. Does he not also note that Canada is the top among all OECD countries when it comes to per capita foreign direct investment in the last year? He knows very well that this did not happen in a vacuum. It is Canada's focus on climate change, the focus on the generation of clean energy, the availability of good, skilled workers and the overall fiscal prudence the government has shown and the economic stability it has shown. Are these not reasons why foreign companies are still interested in investing in Canada today?

104 words

Mr. Don Davies

Apr/18/24 12:34:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have seen the numbers and I listened to the finance minister state that Canada is leading the G7 in foreign direct investment. I would turn my attention to domestic investment. I am not interested in having only foreign companies come into Canada to develop our economy. I want to build strong Canadian businesses and strong champions here at home. We have a lack of investment by Canadian companies in machinery, equipment, technology and innovation that has been lagging and dropping for many years. That is one of the prime reasons Canada is not reaching its potential as an economy. We should be the wealthiest country in the world. We have everything in this country: land, minerals, oil and gas, food, a well-educated population and strong social supports. However, we are not reaching our potential. That is because of decades of poor economic decisions made by successive federal governments that failed to fully harness the potential that is here.

162 words

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ)

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

Mr. Don Davies

Apr/18/24 12:36:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in general, I agree totally with my hon. colleague. The seniors are the Canadians in this country who have, through their many decades of effort, toil, work and labour, built this country. It is a shame when we have so many seniors who are living paycheque to paycheque, often many beneath the poverty line, so we think there needs to be a comprehensive resolution to this issue. That is why, in my speech and in the budget, we are pushing for affordable non-market housing, including for seniors. We have long pushed for increases to the Canada pension plan and old age security, and it should be set, at a minimum, at the poverty level. My hon. colleague did raise dental care. There are two ways we can help seniors. We can raise their incomes, and we can reduce their expenses. In terms of dental care, I cannot tell the House how many seniors, including many in Quebec, have come to me and our party and said thanks for providing dental care, because they now do not have to pay out of pocket for necessary dental care, such as dentures and other things, which they cannot live without. The Canadian dental plan will pay for that for them. That is going to make a meaningful impact on their bottom line and their budgets, and they are thankful for it.

231 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Apr/18/24 12:38:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I noticed in the member's speech that he said that Canada is blessed with the wonderful resource of oil and gas. The member from his party for Timmins—James Bay is bent on shutting oil and gas down. We all know that oil and gas is responsible for contributing to the taxes that fund the social programs the member mentioned. Can he expand a little on how he sees oil and gas being a significant contributor to the Canadian economy?

84 words

Mr. Don Davies

Apr/18/24 12:38:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, oil and gas has provided a lot of revenue to governments over the last decades. Oil and gas in and of themselves are wonderful products. They make flight possible and, in some cases, they provide the basis for pharmaceuticals, the plastics industry and those things. What we are finding in this country, and what I do not think Conservatives understand, is that the planet is telling us that we are burning too much of it, too fast. We do not need to eliminate it totally. What we have to do is get our carbon emissions down below the limit that our natural environment can handle. I am always shocked that Conservatives, particularly when the root of their name is “conserve”, would not be prudent and cautious when our natural world is telling us that we have to take our foot off the gas and we have to get carbon emissions below a level that our planet can handle. That does not mean that there is not a place or a use for any fossil fuels. It means we have to make sure we calibrate that in a manner that is in harmony with our natural world. We are not doing that now, and that is why the NDP is so concerned about the climate crisis. It is because we risk planetary catastrophe.

226 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Apr/18/24 12:39:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to the speech by the member for Carleton, the leader of the Conservative Party. Particularly there were a couple of areas I found really shocking. In one he was talking about federal lands. The Conservative leader clearly does not understand indigenous rights, in terms of the right of first refusal, particularly around resource extraction. He also has a very clear plan to eliminate any sort of public health response to the overdose crisis. In fact, he cited indigenous peoples and our traditions as the way forward, when it is indigenous peoples in my riding who are fighting for safe consumption sites and safe supply. There is another thing that is missing in the budget. I want to say that auto theft is a critical issue in this country, but the government put $47 million toward auto theft and $22 million to deal with the crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. That sends a clear message to indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people that this country values cars more than us. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can speak to some of the issues that the Conservatives clearly would gut and make worse and that the Liberals are not responding to.

212 words