So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 61 - Apr/29/22

Apr/29/22 10:14:40 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I am always intrigued by the interventions of the member for Winnipeg North, and I appreciate that he thinks I am a future finance minister. I hope he passes that on to the member for Carleton and others. Well, I promoted myself to government. As members know, we supported those initial programs because of the speed with which the pandemic hit us. Absolutely, all of the parties supported it. However, after we reviewed them a month in, and we all recall that back then people thought it would be for a very short time, but it ended up being longer, and it was time for more targeted programs. It was clear that not all companies and all people were suffering at the same level during COVID. The government failed to do that, and that is the danger of universal social programs.

143 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Apr/29/22 10:03:34 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, it is always such an honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of my community of South Shore—St. Margarets. Today, we are debating the report stage of Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, in other words, more government spending on COVID‑19. Let us look at the NDP and Liberal COVID spending to date in this bill. The fall fiscal update added another $70 billion in new spending, and this spending is on top of that. The $70 billion I mentioned does not even include the Liberal campaign promises, which would be tens of billions more if, and that is a big if, the NDP-Liberal government lives up to their campaign promises and their coalition. The bill is going to add $70 billion on top of what we saw in the public accounts, the $1.4 trillion of debt that Canadian taxpayers are now on the hook for. Let us think about that: $70 billion more, on top of the $1.4 trillion that has already been added until now. It is said that one should know history so one does not repeat it. I guess the current government does not know history, because if it did, it would see that the son is repeating the mistakes of the father. To understand the context of what this bill and this spending's impact on the economy will be, let us take a look at what the father did. It tells us what the country will face in the coming years because of the fiscal mismanagement of the son and the father. In the federal election of 1968, Pierre Trudeau reassured Canadians that a Liberal government would not raise taxes or increase spending. The government, he said during the election of 1968, is not Santa Claus. How did that work out? When Pierre Trudeau became prime minister, real government spending increased from 17% of GDP to 24.3%. In other words, the federal government's share of the economy rose 42% under Trudeau senior. Every single area of the federal government's spending increased under Trudeau senior, except defence spending, where he cut spending in half as a percentage of the budget. When Pierre Trudeau took office, we spent more on national defence than we did on servicing the country's debt. When he left office in 1984, for every dollar the government spent on defence, we spent three dollars on paying just the interest on his national debt. How did he do it? He created 114 agencies and commissions. He created seven new government departments, for a total of 464 Crown corporations with 213 subsidiaries. The annual deficit rose to almost $40 billion. That does not seem so unreasonable, given what we have seen with the spending in this place lately. However, that $40 billion was on a base budget, an annual Government of Canada budget, of $100 billion. I raise this because, as the adage goes, “Like father, like son.” Pierre Trudeau once said, “We're going to build socialism here.” Well, he did, and his son just formalized it. People who grew up in the 1930s, such as Pierre Trudeau, saw Roosevelt's New Deal of massive government infrastructure spending to pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression. They thought that this approach in the 1970s would stimulate us out of the “stagflation” of that time, which was, for those who do not remember, high inflation combined with high unemployment and a stagnant demand in the economy. It was disastrous. It was so bad that at one point Pierre Trudeau brought in wage and price controls. He said, “Zap, you're frozen”, and froze all wages and prices. When those socialist wage and price controls came off, the floodgates of wage demands and price adjustments went up even faster. By the time Pierre Trudeau left office, 38¢ of every dollar collected in taxes by the Government of Canada was to pay interest, and only interest, on the debt. The biggest single government program was paying interest on Pierre Trudeau's debt. The government in 1984 spent more on debt interest payments than it spent on defence spending and health care combined. Trudeau's policies of massive spending led to a rapid rise in interest rates to try to reduce inflation. All that government spending simply made it worse. In the early 1980s, banks were creating home mortgages at 21% annual interest rates. When Brian Mulroney took office in 1984, and I joined that government as a young staffer, we had to break the cycle of spending and deficits that were killing Canada's economy and jobs. By 1987, Mulroney was managing the government in an operating surplus position, reversing the structural deficits created by the Liberals. The deficits after 1987 were entirely as a result of paying interest on Pierre Trudeau's debt. The government remained in an operating surplus through successive prime ministers until the current Liberal government came to office. The Mulroney government reined in spending and fundamentally restructured the economy with a new vision to deal with the economics of the day. There were fundamental changes, such as a complete restructuring of Canada's financial services industry; the first introduction anywhere in the world of free trade, which did not exist anywhere before then; the replacement of the 13.5% manufacturers' sales tax with the 7% goods and services tax; the elimination of the national energy program and the job-killing foreign investment review agency; and, yes, the privatization of 23 Crown corporations, which I was proud to be a part of, including Air Canada. The Chrétien government continued this work with further cuts in government spending, although it took a different approach. It collapsed the separate unemployment insurance fund into the consolidated revenue fund, and then artificially kept payments high in order to build up a surplus that was not needed to pay unemployment insurance but was used to pay down the debt. It dropped the government spending on health care by 50%. It took the governments that followed more than 25 years to break the back of Trudeau's disastrous spending, but he was a piker compared to his son, who has added more debt to Canada's national accounts in six years than all other governments since our founding in 1867. The son, in 2015, promised small stimulus deficits that would be balanced by 2019. Just like his father did in 1968, when he said he would not spend, the son promised the same thing in 2015. We know how that turned out. The government spent $600 million on high school students living at home in its first round of COVID spending. The government also spent $11.8 billion on CERB for 15- to 24-year-olds who were living with their parents; $7 billion on spouses in households with more than $100,000 in earnings; $110 billion on the Canada wage subsidy. Some studies have found that the money did obviously go to struggling companies during COVID, but many were strong enough to withstand it on their own; 24% of that money went to companies whose revenue actually increased during COVID, and 49% to companies whose profits increased during COVID. Spending more than $600 billion in two years, printing more than $3 billion a week in new money, has caused the structural inflation of almost 6% we now see. In the coming year or two, we will start to see wage inflation as a result of the way companies, both unionized and not, determine how their employees get pay raises, which is usually based on inflation. As publicly traded companies raise salaries at all levels, because consultants and their HR board committees will say they need to do so or risk losing their employees to other competitors, combined with the demands for CPI adjustments in union contracts, that is what is going to create wage inflation. We have not seen anything yet. Wage inflation will fuel further goods inflation as more dollars will flood the market chasing limited goods, which in turn leads to higher inflation. The consequences of providing all these universal government COVID programs, pushing all this money into the economy at levels not needed, and now new social programs when the government is not even properly funding health care, will add to the structural deficit that the country has. The government has no plans to reduce the footprint of government in the economy, which means we are heading toward stagnation, a 1970s-type of situation. I cannot support this bill, because Bill C-8 and the recently tabled budget will just make Canada's finances drastically worse. The NDP and the Liberals have not learned in their pact from what happened in the 1970s, and they had a pact in the 1970s, too. History is repeating. Like father, like son.

1513 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Mar/24/22 4:01:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have not spent my life in medicine, as this member has. I have spent it in business, and I have a lot of business planning and strategies. There is a famous saying, “If you do not know where you are going, any road will get you there”, and this strikes me as the Minister of Health's motto. He does not seem to know where he is going, and he spouts statistics, as we saw today, unrelated to the questions. Does the hon. member think the government's road is to get us to 100% vaccination before it will raise these mandates? Does he have any sense, from what the minister said today, of where it is going?

123 words

Context: House Hansard - 36 - Feb/21/22

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/21/22 3:04:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was a legislative assistant here in the 1980s. I knew the legendary NDP co-founder Stanley Knowles, who was elected 13 times as the member for Winnipeg North Centre. In the 1970 debate invoking the war measures act, Mr. Knowles said, “we have to work very hard to show that in our kind of society we still think there is a better way...to deal with ideas that we do not [agree with].” Why did the NDP coalition not listen to the sage words of Mr. Knowles before implementing the act?

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/20/22 10:51:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the respectful tone the member for Vancouver Kingsway has taken in his presentation tonight, and I offer my observations and comments in the same light. I have often heard the word “sedition”, not from the member's presentation directly, but from members of the NDP and the Liberal Party throughout today and the debates on Saturday and Thursday. It is a very powerful word that I think is often being abused in the discussion around this. My observation is that there are very strong tools for the government, under section 46 of the Criminal Code, to deal with treason and sedition. If the government believes that this is treason and sedition, perhaps it should have used that tool. If that is the case, why has nobody been charged under it?

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/20/22 5:39:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard often from members opposite that they could not do some of the things they needed without invoking the Emergencies Act. However, section 129 of the Criminal Code allows the Minister of Justice to impose on and get people, tow trucks, to work with police. The Interprovincial Policing Act in Ontario enables a police chief to deputize any person simply to do this. Can the hon. member tell me if she has heard any arguments from the government during this important debate that justify or demonstrate that the government pursued any of these legal tools before invoking this act?

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/20/22 3:53:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Andreas Park, who is a finance professor at the University of Toronto, commenting on the extraordinary financial powers to freeze people's bank accounts said, “What we're doing is we're taking people who have not been charged with a crime and we're threatening them with financial ruin. It strikes me as the mob rule.” They should be afraid of mob rules since the Minister of Justice indicated that political movements the Liberal government disapproves of should be worried. Would the member please comment on that extraordinary power?

94 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/20/22 12:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am curious. In the member's speech he referred to security intelligence reports showing the protests were a threat to democracy. I believe he knows that privy councillors are subject to the Official Secrets Act. Our leader, as a member of the Queen's Privy Council, was not asked or invited to anything. I do not believe the hon. member is a member of the Queen's Privy Council. Could he share with us the intelligence briefings that he got as a person who is not a member of the Queen's Privy Council on the security threat to the Government of Canada?

106 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 12:10:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has to back up statements with facts, as a requirement of giving a speech—

26 words

All Topics

Feb/19/22 6:31:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I did not realize this was a meeting room. They are having a meeting and talking so loud we cannot hear—

30 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/19/22 2:07:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague was a banker prior to being elected in 2021, so I want to ask her a question about the Emergencies Act regulations, which tells financial institutions to cease dealing with designated persons. In my riding on Friday, two bank branches ran out of money because Canadians, who were afraid the government was going to take their assets under this legislation, came into the banks and took out their money. Therefore, I would like you to comment, as a former branch manager and banker, on how you would deal with that?

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/19/22 1:08:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech in this excellent debate on this act, the member talked about the need to reach out to people and hear what people have to say. One of the documents that the government tabled with the proclamation is called “Report to the Houses of Parliament: Emergencies Act Consultations”. It is actually a list of all the meetings the government had prior to invoking the Emergencies Act, as required under the act, to try to establish whether or not it did steps one and two before going to the “last resort”, as the Prime Minister said the Emergencies Act is. When I look through it, I cannot see steps one or two, other than meeting with themselves in cabinet meetings. The government never met with a Canadian outside of the government. Could the hon. member tell us his position with regard to consultation and hearing people before resorting to such a draconian act?

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/19/22 11:50:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the member on his excellent speech in this difficult time. I would like to ask him a question about the order in council that the government passed that led to the invocation of the act that we're debating today. One of the clauses in the act gives the government the power to impose “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known”. It is a pretty open-ended power that the government is asking for. We know that the Prime Minister has limited respect for the House. He disregarded the request for the production of documents with regard to the Winnipeg lab. He tried to interfere in the legal system with the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Why should we trust him? He has not called a meeting of the privy councillors sworn in in this House to brief them on any security issues. Why should we trust that this power should be granted to the government, which is—

175 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Feb/17/22 9:10:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not think I said that. What I said is that we will stand up for ending the mandates. In her relationship with the Liberals and supporting bringing in a reduction in people's freedoms, I would pose a question to her. Why is she not listening to the people she is hearing from who are complaining about wanting these mandates reduced and relieved? Provinces are doing it. Provinces out west are doing it. All kinds of provinces are doing it. The government is ignoring and continues to ignore the needs of Canadians who want to get back to a normal life. It is putting its own political agenda ahead of everybody in order to try to wedge and divide us.

124 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Feb/17/22 9:08:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister should have actually enforced the existing laws and tools he has before him without using the act. I am hearing from members opposite that it is not his job. That is the problem with the government. Nothing is its job. Whether it is inflation or this crisis, it is always somebody else's fault. My colleague from Nova Scotia, who I respect a lot, has also said that it is not our problem, that we did not create the economic crisis we are in. I am sorry, but you did. That is your excuse for everything in this House.

106 words

All Topics