SoVote

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

Apr/18/24 1:27:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, I withdraw that part of my statement unequivocally. However, that member stands up here and continues to prop up the government, which has driven more Canadians into food banks than ever before, and then she has the gall to talk about farmers, when she completely supports almost putting our farmers into bankruptcy and not helping Bill C-234 pass in its original form so that we can bring down the cost of gas and groceries. The bill would help reduce costs for our hard-working farmers, yet they go on this attack on our farmers always and are okay with the cost of everything going up. They continue to prop up the government. I think that member needs to stop protecting her leader's penchant for propping up the corrupt Prime Minister. It is time to get out of the way and go to a carbon tax election so that Canadians, and especially Albertans, can tell her and her government where they stand on the carbon tax. After the next carbon tax election, Canadians are going to scrap the Prime Minister and that NDP government.

187 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Apr/18/24 1:28:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, something that bothers me and a lot of my constituents is just how much interest we are paying on the national debt. My hon. colleague talked about more money going to service the debt than going into health care, but he mentioned the military as well. I would like to ask his opinion on the importance of supporting our military here in Canada, especially considering how volatile the world is, and about the lack of commitment by the current government to getting us to our international commitments, in particular NATO, and how much that bothers so many Canadians and our allies.

103 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

Apr/18/24 1:29:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his service and the great work he does here. He might be a slightly better hockey player than me. However, I agree with him. It just goes to show that, under the Prime Minister after nine years, Canada has become a joke and is not taken seriously, not only just within our allies but on the world stage. We need to restore the responsibility of a common-sense Conservative—

79 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/18/24 1:29:24 p.m.
Watch

The time is up.

4 words

Time

Mr. Damien Kurek

Apr/18/24 1:29:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), I would like to inform the House that the remaining Conservative caucus speaking slots are hereby divided in two.

35 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Apr/18/24 1:29:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I give a speech, I usually say that I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to a subject. Today, however, I cannot really say that I am pleased. I would like to begin with a brief look back in time. The date is August 2, 2015, when the election was called. We learned in the weeks following the start of the election campaign that the Conservative government had left a budget surplus of $1 billion. The fiscal year ended with a surplus. I have to admit that the Liberals are marketing masters. They are experts at this. They know how to play with people's emotions, with their minds. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Liberal Party, promised to run small $10‑billion deficits in the first and second years in order to invest heavily in Canadian infrastructure, and he promised to balance the budget in the third year. Voters who heard that thought it might not be so crazy. Maybe he was right; maybe we did need to invest in infrastructure. They decided to give him a chance. Voters were entranced by that promise. Instead of making massive investments in infrastructure and running a $10‑billion deficit each year for the first two years, the government ran a $30‑billion deficit in the first year, and again in the next two years. Four years later, at the end of the first Liberal term, a $100‑billion deficit had been added to the debt. In the very first year, after $30 billion in deficits, we checked in on the infrastructure situation. In the end, $3 billion of that $30 billion had been spent on infrastructure. That means that $27 billion disappeared into thin air. That happened every year for the next nine years. We are talking nine years of budget deficits. These are not small deficits, these are massive budgets. The country's debt has doubled and now stands at $1.2 trillion. That is $600 billion more than it was at the beginning of the Liberal government's mandate. Since then, what has happened? Inflationary deficits have caused interest rates to rise. I get the feeling that people are not paying attention to the fact that this is putting social programs at risk. Yes, the federal government already had social programs. However, by running up deficits, it has run out of money. It is jeopardizing what was already there by creating other programs that are just ideas—nothing is functioning yet. It is not the federal government's role to create programs that interfere in provincial jurisdictions. As I said, the Liberal marketing machine is on overdrive, releasing lots of pretty pictures and promising everyone the moon and the stars, but that is not what is really happening. Programs are being jeopardized. Organizations everywhere are struggling and are no longer getting any answers. People are calling us and saying that they do not know what to do because the funding they used to receive no longer exists. They do not know what to do, and they are not getting any answers. It is not complicated. They have no money left in the bank and no room on their line of credit. That is what happens when the government runs a massive deficit and pretends that it is helping people, when there is no money left to help them. This is an untenable situation. As far as this year's budget is concerned, some will say that the opposition complains all the time, that it has nothing better to do. It is true that we have some criticisms, but they are justified. There is a lot to criticize here. As a matter of fact, that is our job. More importantly, experts, analysts, journalists who cover the economy, have all said right from the start that, once again, this defies common sense. When we talk about having common sense, that is in contrast to things that defy common sense. Again, this is a massive deficit budget for which there is no explanation. The Liberals are quite adept at this. I cannot show it because we are not allowed to show anything in the House, but I have a brick in my hands, namely the budget. In reading it we see that there are some fine words and good intentions, but there is nothing meaningful. In the end, we see that there is more than $40 billion in inflationary spending, a $39.5-billion or $40-billion deficit and we are getting nothing for our money. If only there had been something meaningful. Had the Liberals implemented something substantial in terms of infrastructure at the time when they promised to invest in it, then we could have said that their plan is working. However, instead, it seems as though the Liberals are wasting money and do not know where the money is going. That is fascinating but also unfortunate for Canadians. Many people have been raising red flags for a long time, and I am not talking about the Conservatives. On the Liberal side of things, two weeks ago, the former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that this budget would be the worst budget since 1982. John Manley, a former Liberal finance minister, also said a few months ago, that by acting as it is doing, the government is pushing on the inflationary gas pedal. This way of spending and wasting money—money that, let us face it, is borrowed because it is being loaned to us by a bank—is driving up inflation and interest rates. What is shocking is that this does not seem to bother the Prime Minister. We keep telling ourselves that, at some point, he will finally understand, get his act together and realize that his peaches and cream idea is not working and that he needs to regain control of the public purse, but no. The government is cozying up with the NDP and, too often, with our Bloc Québécois friends. It keeps spending and spending, and we have no idea where that money is going. That is not helping people. Canadians are struggling more than ever. They cannot make ends meet. Everything costs more. Rent has doubled. A down payment on a mortgage to buy a house is double what it used to be. Young people cannot afford that. I have 20-year-old children. They look at that and tell themselves they will never be able to buy a house. There is no way. House prices have gone up. The amount people need for a down payment has gone up. The same goes for rent. A small two-bedroom apartment used to cost $1,000; now it is $2,000 or $2,200. This is not working. Worse still, we now have to pay interest on nine years' worth of deficits, and that costs us $54.1 billion a year. That is as much as the budget for health transfers. Instead of sending that money to the provinces to help the health care system, the government is sending it directly to banks in London and New York. What good does that do us? None at all. Worse still, Thomas Mulcair and others have said that $54.1 billion is the equivalent of all the GST we pay on our bills. If someone gets a restaurant bill that includes $13 in GST, they might wonder where that $13 will go and whether it will be spent on Canadians. Unfortunately, it will go to banks to pay off interest. All the GST collected from businesses and individuals will do nothing but pay interest on the debt. No one is going to convince me that this makes any sense. No one is going to tell me that it is no big deal or, like the Liberals in defeat, that we are better off than other G7 countries. Are we really better off than other G7 countries? A typical single-family home in the United States costs half as much as it does here. Gasoline is cheaper. Everything is cheaper in the United States based on population. What are we being compared to? That is where it falls apart. The Liberals cannot get it through their heads that what needs to be looked at is daily life, the everyday lives of Canadians who work, pay taxes and realize that, when all is said and done, everything costs them more and they do not have the money to make ends meet. Not everyone has the luxury of simply going to the bank to apply for a $50,000 loan with the intention of paying the interest when they have the money. That is not how it works in real life. The government should act like people do in real life and be cautious. That is what is so deplorable about this government. It is not careful with the public purse. Worse still, it keeps borrowing money and paying interest. At the end of the day, we cannot support this bill. More than that, we will vote against it and consider that a vote of non-confidence, because it is over. We do not have confidence in this government. After nine years, we have more and more evidence of that.

1573 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Apr/18/24 1:39:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member claims that no investments have been made in infrastructure. We know that the Canada Infrastructure Bank invested in the REM project in Montreal, a fantastic project. The Champlain Bridge was rebuilt using federal funds. That is why I am struggling to understand what he means. In other words, is that money down the drain? The member seems to be saying that all of this spending is money down the drain. I would like to hear his thoughts on those two projects.

86 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Apr/18/24 1:39:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the contrary, I would have liked to see the Prime Minister, when he was leader of the Liberal Party in 2015, fulfill his promise and spend his $10-billion deficits in the first and second years on infrastructure. I would remind my colleague that it was Denis Lebel, a member of the Conservative government at the time, who announced the Champlain Bridge infrastructure project in Montreal, which cost $5 billion or $6 billion. It was the Conservatives who spearheaded that project, and we did a superb job. We want infrastructure that respects taxpayers' wallets. We are criticizing the waste that goes who knows where.

108 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Apr/18/24 1:40:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague. If the Conservative Party comes to power, what will it do with the substantial increase in the capital gains tax? Will they scrap it?

34 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Apr/18/24 1:40:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is not a hypothetical question: we are going to come to power next year, while remaining very humble. I think that Canadians have understood that after nine years of this government, it is time for a major change. As far as the capital gains tax for businesses and individuals are concerned, I think this needs to be analyzed. More and more financial analysts are looking at this. People who bought a small duplex 25 or 30 years ago as a way of creating a retirement fund for their old age are going to be taxed so heavily that all of their hopes will be dashed. These measures need to be reassessed. The Liberal magic is to say that the wealthiest will pay, but overall, the truly wealthy who hide their money in the Cayman Islands are not going to pay anything, while the people who are creating a retirement fund are under attack in this budget.

159 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Apr/18/24 1:41:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found it so striking that the current government, when it comes to many of the issues, is starting to identify the problem, but its members fail to identify that they have been in charge and, in many cases, that they have been the architects of the very problems that they are now finally starting to identify. I wonder if my colleague could further elaborate on how, with respect to those problems that the members of the Liberal government are now starting to identify, they simply need to acknowledge that they are in many cases the cause.

99 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Apr/18/24 1:42:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Conservative government left a $1-billion surplus in the lead-up to the 2015 election. Over the past nine years, the country's debt has doubled. The government no longer has money to subsidize existing social programs, yet it is adding new ones by interfering in provincial jurisdictions. It is all make-believe. It is simply marketing, trying to win votes, but in the end, all the government is doing is creating problems for Canadians.

92 words

Surplus
Debt

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

Apr/18/24 1:43:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing about the Conservative Party is that it is a misleading party. A good example of that is how the Conservatives like to twist the facts. For example, they talk about a lack of investment. In the first three quarters of 2023, which was just last year, Canada, out of the G7, had the highest amount of foreign investment. Do members know that it took Stephen Harper almost 10 years to create almost one million jobs? In less than nine years, we have created over two million jobs. I would suggest that the Conservatives are great at spin; on the reality of performing for Canadians, they fail.

110 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Apr/18/24 1:44:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I love to see my colleague get carried away and shouting, but I will not let it get to me. Canada is clearly the laughing stock of the world on a number of fronts right now. More specifically, investors are extremely reluctant to come to the country, given the government's tax policies. Many companies have no interest in setting up shop here. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, whom I like very much, is working hard but, unfortunately, he is having trouble convincing industries because they can see that this government's policies are far too socialist.

101 words

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

Apr/18/24 1:44:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the Minister of Justice. Budget 2024 involves a number of programs. I do not have a lot of time today, so I want to focus my remarks on one particular program, and then provide some comments on some stuff I heard earlier today in this debate. I would first like to applaud the government on the introduction of a national school food program. Canada is the only G7 country that does not have a national school food program. I know that, in many parts of our country, different organizations like the Food Sharing Project in Kingston, in my riding, has been collaborating over the years with volunteers and donations in order to put food in schools so that children can have a healthy start and can have food in their stomachs when they start the day, and throughout the day, when they are at school. I had the opportunity, not that long ago, to go with my family to help the Food Sharing Project pack, organize and prepare food to be sent out to schools. I really was impressed when my seven-year-old son looked at me and acknowledged that this was where the food came from. It dawned on me in that moment that, as far as children are concerned, when they are in school and accessing this food, there is no stereotyping as to who is receiving it. Whether they are less well off or more well off, everybody has access to the same food. It helps to break down the stereotyping that exist around who needs food because their parents cannot afford everything they need, and it gives kids a start in life where everybody is on an equal playing field. Therefore, I am very glad to see $1 billion committed over the next five years to a national school food program because it is more than just giving food to particularly vulnerable Canadians and vulnerable children; it breaks down the stereotyping that exist among the haves and the have-nots, so I am happy to see that the government has responded to the calls to action within our communities to provide this. I have had the opportunity to present many petitions over the last several months. Each school community in my riding put together a petition, which I have presented at various times over the last several months to the House. I want to thank them for that incredible work. By doing that and by responding to that need, these school communities in my riding can see that their voices have been heard. They called on the government to do something so urgently, and it responded. I am very proud to be part of a government that is introducing this national school food program. The other thing I want to talk about today is misinformation and some disinformation. In particular, I want to go back to an exchange that happened earlier today between the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Winnipeg North, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. After the introductory speech, where the member for Carleton went on for hours, I believe, because the first speaker has the opportunity to do that, the first question he received from the parliamentary secretary was about how many affordable homes he had built. The parliamentary secretary was gracious enough to allow the Leader of the Opposition to know that he had built a total number of six homes. What I find really interesting about this is the response from the Leader of the Opposition. This will demonstrate the master manipulator of information that he is, which the parliamentary secretary pointed out at the time. This is what happened. In response to that question, the Leader of the Opposition got up and basically chastised the member for Winnipeg North for spreading disinformation that he got off a Twitter account. I hope those who are listening in the gallery and at home will listen to the specific word he used. He said, “If you want to know...how many affordable homes were built when I was...minister, we completed 92,782 apartments”. That is exactly what he said. The member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary, stood up on a point of order and said that the Leader of the Opposition was intentionally—

737 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/18/24 1:49:40 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

16 words

Gantic
Rable

Mr. Luc Berthold

Apr/18/24 1:49:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to add that the 90,000 or so units built on the member for Carleton's watch had an average rent of $970 a month.

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/18/24 1:50:01 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order and the hon. member knows it. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

21 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/18/24 1:50:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I admire the work that the Conservative member is trying to do to cover up for his leader and to do his dirty work for him. Unfortunately, in the challenging exchange that occurred, the Leader of the Opposition doubled down on his comments.

45 words

Comments

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/18/24 1:50:25 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.

18 words