Evidence of meeting #115 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
In that case, Mr. Chair, I'll seek unanimous consent to allow another six-minute round so we can get some wonderful feedback from our witnesses, so that they haven't just wasted their time.
I actually think the government is just upset about what Mr. Dicker might say, because he was so ruthless on the Bank of Canada and the fiscal monetary policy. Anyway, I'll set that aside. I'll have six minutes with him later, potentially.
I want UC to go for another round here so we can get some testimony on the record while we negotiate.
12:25 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
I heard a “no”.
MP Morantz, you're next on the list, and then MP Lawrence.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to the motion we have before us, I think it would be worthwhile to read it into the record, just so that all the people who are watching understand what it is that Liberal members of this committee have put forward.
Before I read it, I have to say, again, that we have a housing crisis in this country. We heard Mr. Cooper say that we need to build 5.8 million homes by 2030 and that the cost would be over $3 trillion. To put it in perspective for those watching, the cumulative total of the national debt is $1.2 trillion, accumulated since 1867. Now, in a spectacular fashion, the Liberals have managed to double that in just eight years, from $600 billion to $1.2 trillion.
The fact of the matter is that we have some excellent witnesses here on a very important study that my colleague Mr. Blaikie put forward on a crisis that is of the highest import to Canadians at this point in time.
What do the Liberals choose to do? They choose to bring in a motion to try to wedge and divide Canadians to distract them from the government's horrible economic malpractice committed on our economy over the last eight years. That is what this is about: to divide and distract Canadians from the Liberals' terrible record. As Conservatives, we're not going to let them do it. Canadians will not let us let them do it, frankly.
About the motion itself, I know Liberal members of this committee are sitting on the edge of their seats, wondering what I think of this motion and what ideas I might be able to bring to bear on the quality of the motion. I'm sure our witnesses are going to find this conversation very interesting.
Let's read the motion into the record so that Canadians know exactly what we're talking about in the middle of a housing study. It says, “That the Chair of the committee immediately report to the House”. What that means, for those watching, is that sometimes motions come before the committee and they're not reported to the House of Commons, and sometimes they are. When a motion is passed at committee and is not reported to the House of Commons, it just ends here. We at the committee make a statement on whatever the motion is, and it doesn't go any further than that.
However, when somebody introduces a motion that includes the words “report to the House”, if that motion passes in the committee, what it means is that debate can actually be taken up in the House of Commons by all members of the House of Commons. It's an important distinction that those who are watching this debate need to understand.
Let me just read it again, because I want to make sure it sinks in: “That the Chair of the committee”. This is asking you, Mr. Chair, that the committee report this matter to the House, if I have that correct. If this motion did pass, Mr. Chair, it would then be incumbent upon you to report that the motion had passed and to report the content of the motion to the House. Then, what would happen is that a member of the House could stand up and call for a debate on this motion. The reality is that, I think, that's an important piece of the puzzle when it comes to debating important issues on the Hill. Sometimes an issue could be adequately debated just here in the committee. At other times, it's important that the motion also be debated in the House. Sometimes we include that proviso, that it be reported to the House, and sometimes we don't. In this case, the mover of the motion has decided to include that.
The motion goes on, in number one, to say that the committee “Celebrates the Canada Pension Plan”. I have to say that I think it is worth celebrating. It's a very important piece of the puzzle in terms of preserving the dignity of Canadians when they retire to make sure they have sufficient income to live the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.
However, I have to say that inflationary deficits and spending policies of this government, as confirmed by not only the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but former finance minister John Manley.... In fact, the present finance minister herself admitted that they fuelled the inflationary fire. Canadians are probably rightfully worried that their pensions will not go far enough in terms of allowing them that goal—to live a life of dignity in their elder years, which is the point of the Canada pension plan in the first place.
It says, “Celebrates the Canada Pension Plan as the foundation of a secure and dignified retirement for tens of millions of Canadians and a pillar of Canada's economy”. Now—
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but I have a point of order.
I don't want to interrupt Mr. Morantz, but I think at this point I would maybe ask if we could let our witnesses go. It looks like it's just going to be a waste of their time to be here.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Ms. Dzerowicz.
I'm just looking around to the members. I think everybody seems to be in agreement.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
May I continue, Mr. Chair?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I'm still hoping. The witnesses are here. I know some of them travelled long distances to be here early this morning. I'm still holding out hope that maybe we'll actually be able to hear from them today, despite this inconsiderate approach by the Liberal members of this committee.
In any event, what I find interesting about the motion in clause 1 is that it actually talks about how the Canada pension plan is “a pillar of Canada's economy”. I think that's a very important part of the motion.
It gives me the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to actually talk about Canada's economy. There's so much to say. My goodness, I could go on for hours and hours. People know how I love to talk about capital cost allowances, about accelerated depreciation, about the MURBs program from the 1970s and about Mr. Asselin's testimony that our social programs are unsustainable because interest costs are outstripping economic growth.
The thing I found interesting—which put it all together for me just this morning, Mr. Chair—was this incredible opinion piece published by The Globe and Mail. I thought I would take the opportunity, only because the motion specifically addresses the matter of Canada's economy, to actually get on the record the state of the Canadian economy. I thought I would take a few minutes—not too long—to read this opinion piece into the record. I know the folks at The Globe and Mail will be very happy to see that I'm reading this important piece into the record. Let me proceed with that.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Morantz, it's just starting to get off the motion.
What I would say is that I think we should dismiss the witnesses.
On that, I also want to ask members to send to the witnesses any questions that they would have liked to ask them. We would like to get those answers. Witnesses, if there is anything further you wanted to put on the record beyond your opening statement and the testimony, and the questions that you've already answered—we thank you for those—please submit that through the clerk to our committee. We would like that for our report.
Thank you very much.
My apologies, but these things happen. As we dismiss you, I want to say that you are a great group of people. We thank you for your expertise and for coming before our committee.
We will suspend.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We are back.
MP Morantz, you had the floor. Then I have MP Lawrence and MP Dzerowicz.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Because of the interruption, maybe I should start from the beginning so that the flow of the conversation is consistent.
First, I want to say how disappointed Conservative members of this committee are. We have these incredible witnesses here today to impart their wisdom to us on the economic crisis of our day in this country, which is the housing crisis. CMHC has said we need to build 5.8 million houses by 2030, which is 3.5 million over and above what would normally be built. We heard testimony from Mr. Cooper that this would cost an astounding $3.2 trillion, almost three times the accumulated national debt since 1867. What do the Liberals do? They dismiss the witnesses. It's very disappointing. I don't know if we'll ever get such an excellent group of witnesses back on this study again. It's too bad we didn't have the opportunity to question them, given that they were literally sitting right here.
Having said that, I will turn my thoughts to the motion at hand. I think it's important for people watching to understand how this works. The motion says that the chair of the committee—which is you, Mr. Chair—immediately report the motion to the House, if this motion should pass. The reason I'm raising this is that not every motion says that. In fact, many motions don't say that. Sometimes the committee decides that a debate on any particular motion at the committee is sufficient and it doesn't need to go any further, but other times members will include these words in a motion, that it be reported to the House.
What that means, Mr. Chair, is that if this motion should pass, it could be raised for debate in the House and be debated among all members of the House. I think it's very important for all those watching this meeting to understand the distinction between a motion that is absent the words “report to the House” and a motion that contains the words “report to the House”. This motion, in fact, contains the words “report to the House”, which means that, should it pass, Mr. Chair, you will be obligated to report the decision on this motion and the content of the motion itself to the House, where it could be taken up for debate at some future point in time.
Clause 1 of the motion says, “Celebrates the Canada Pension Plan as the foundation of a secure and dignified retirement for tens of millions of Canadians and a pillar of Canada's economy”. I want to take a bit of a deep dive on that sentence, so let's look at the first part. It says, “Celebrates the Canada Pension Plan”. I think all of us at this committee would agree on that. It is something to be celebrated. Canada is the best country in the world. Canada has created a pension plan that allows Canadians, in their retirement years, after working hard for so many years, contributing to their communities and raising their families—and, back then, being able to afford to buy a home—to retire in dignity. We all support that goal, and I think the words “Celebrates the Canada Pension Plan” in this motion are completely appropriate.
Then it goes on to say, “as the foundation of a secure and dignified retirement”. Again, as I said, that's obviously something any reasonably thinking person could support.
It then goes on to say, “retirement for tens of millions of Canadians and a pillar of Canada's economy”. Now, I have to say, Mr. Chair, that I'm glad the mover of the motion included those words, because I think it's very important that when we're looking at the economy, we talk about all of the economy. The fact of the matter is that the better the Canadian economy does, the more secure Canadians' pensions are. I think most people would agree that this is true. You can't borrow your way into a secure retirement plan. It needs to be done through economic growth.
That's why I was so interested in this opinion piece, published just this morning in The Globe and Mail, which talks about Canada's economy. I thought I would take a moment to actually read it into the record. It's just so interesting. It raises so many points that are relevant to the Canada pension plan, I have to say.
The headline says, “Canada's prosperity problem points to a lower-wage future: The country is not just losing ground relative to other countries but there is an increasing likelihood of an outright decline in living standards”.
This was written by the editorial board, just to be clear, of The Globe and Mail. This is the editorial board of The Globe and Mail.
The article says:
Thirty years ago, Canada could be rightly thought of as one of the more prosperous countries in the world. Canadians were not quite as rich as Americans, but we had many other advantages—and were better off than pretty much everyone else.
That’s the past. The present and future look to be a great deal less pleasant: Canada is not just losing ground relative to other countries but there is an increasing likelihood of an outright decline in living standards.
According to recent data and forecasts in a report from the C.D. Howe Institute, Canada’s relative prosperity is in steep decline—
These are strong words from The Globe and Mail editorial board and should be taken note of by all members of this committee who care about our economy.
—with this country's gross domestic product per capita falling well below the average for the advanced economies that make up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
That's what many people may recognize as the OECD, which is an international body.
In 1993, Canada’s real GDP per capita was 106 per cent of the OECD average. The C.D. Howe Institute forecasts that in 2024 Canada will be just 89 per cent of the average of advanced economies. Canada has also fallen compared with the United States: In 2023, this country’s GDP per capita is forecast to be less than three-quarters—
That's less than 75%.
—that of the U.S. (Those statistics are relatively generous to Canada, since the institute has adjusted them for domestic purchasing power.)
Like so many of the big issues vexing Canada, the prosperity problem is long-standing, but has gathered speed in recent years, accelerating since the Liberals took power in 2015. It would not be fair to lay the problem entirely at the feet of the Trudeau government.
I'm going to say that, because that's what the article says.
Now, it does go on to clarify that position—
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
My colleague says he disagrees. I think there's a strong argument there, but I'm just reading what it says:
Like so many of the big issues vexing Canada, the prosperity problem is long-standing, but has gathered speed in recent years, accelerating since the Liberals took power in 2015.
It then says, “The housing market is just the most prominent example.” This is pertinent to the study that we were trying to have just a few minutes ago, which got abridged because of this political motion that we're now forced to debate.
In any event, it reads:
The housing market is just the most prominent example. There are many factors that have led to a massive housing shortage and surge in prices, but Ottawa’s failure—
There are such strong words in this editorial.
—to act aggressively to curtail the market—and in some instances to add fuel to the fire in the form of subsidies—is a key part.
Household debt is bigger than the Canadian economy, with mortgages accounting for three-quarters of that total. That’s not just a burden on homeowners—the need to fund those mortgages diverts capital from loans to, say, entrepreneurs that might be riskier but could boost Canada’s economic performance.
Pardon me, Mr. Chair. I'm just getting over a bit of a cold. I need to take a sip of water so that I can continue on with this very unnecessary but important debate.
It says:
The housing market is just the most prominent example. There are many factors that have led to a massive housing shortage and surge in prices, but Ottawa’s failure to act aggressively to curtail the market—and in some instances to add fuel to the fire in the form of subsidies—is a key part.
Household debt is bigger than the Canadian economy, with mortgages accounting for three-quarters of that total. That’s not just a burden on homeowners—the need to fund those mortgages diverts capital from loans to, say, entrepreneurs that might be riskier but could boost Canada’s economic performance.
Conversely, the prosperity problem makes stratospheric housing prices even more of a hardship. Mortgage costs would eat up a smaller share of household income if the economy were growing as fast as the OECD average. One crisis bleeds into another.
There’s a similar story to tell with immigration. The Liberals’ determination to increase immigration levels, particularly temporary migrants, does help to increase the size of Canada’s economy.
But the pace of economic growth is not keeping up with the pace of population expansion, exerting downward pressure on average living standards. As with housing, the prosperity problem intensifies the challenges of higher immigration. A richer Canada would be better able to afford to build the infrastructure needed to accommodate newcomers. One crisis feeds on the other.
The problem is complex, and there will be no simple solutions.
Spurring greater capital spending is key, including tilting the tax code in such a way to encourage investment in productive assets, perhaps through broader and more aggressive amortization rules. Tearing down barriers to competition both internal and at Canada’s borders are part of the equation, as well. Of course, smarter housing policy aimed at sustained supply increases will help, as would an immigration policy focused on boosting incomes rather than importing cheap labour.
Those ideas, and more, have been on offer for years. What has been missing—
This is key, Mr. Chair. I really recommend that you tune in on this part. It says:
What has been missing is a government that sees building a high-wage economy as its core mission—
This is just a damning piece on Canada's economy, which is a key part of the motion. I just want to be clear on that. I am talking about this motion because the motion actually says that the Canada pension plan is a pillar of our economy. I think it's important for those watching to understand in a more fulsome way where Canada's economy is actually at. I think this editorial really nails it.
I'll continue reading:
What has been missing is a government that sees building a high-wage economy as its core mission, and bends every policy to that end. The Liberals have been fond of saying—
This is where it gets really good, Mr. Chair. I know you'll love it.
—that their government aims to help the middle class, and those working hard to join it.
Eight years on—
Does that sound familiar to my colleagues? Who's been saying that? Who's been talking about “after eight years”? Apparently it's The Globe and Mail editorial board.
It continues on to say: “Eight years on, the prosperity problem is even more urgent, and in need of a government”—we are in need of a government, Mr. Chair—“that focuses relentlessly on the entrepreneurial class—and helping those working hard to join it.”
I just thought it was so pertinent to our discussion today. I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to read it into the record.
The motion goes on. There are a second and a third clause, so we should maybe take up an analysis of both of those clauses.
The second clause recognizes “the important contribution of the Quebec Pension Plan which was established independently at the same time as the Canada Pension Plan”. I think that's important to say. I think it was former prime minister Harper who recognized Quebec as a nation within Canada. Conservatives completely respect the fact that Quebec decided—many years ago, at the beginning of the Canada pension plan back in the 1960s—that they wanted to have their own pension plan. In fact, as I understand it, although I'm not an expert on the Canada pension plan legislation, it is permissive of provinces having their own pension plans.
That is not to say that.... As my colleagues have said, I certainly would encourage Albertans, once they've had a chance to fully consider and understand the nature of the idea of going out on their own and leaving the Canada pension plan, to dismiss that idea. However, I want to say that I completely respect the luminaries. They are the intellectuals who governed Quebec in the 1960s and had the foresight to decide that, for Quebec, this was the right thing to do. Therefore, I think that's appropriate to acknowledge in this motion as well.
We then come to number three. Let me read it into the record, Mr. Chair. Number three reads:
Stands with the majority of Albertans who are opposed to Premier Danielle Smith’s dangerous plan to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan that threaten the pensions of millions of seniors and hardworking Canadians from coast to coast.
This is the “divide and distract” part of the motion. This is the political part of the motion. I want to take quite a bit of time to go through this, because I think it's very important that people who are watching understand what this motion is really about, because it's really about politics.
The first six words of number three are “Stands with the majority of Albertans”. I don't know, for instance, how the mover of this motion knows that. I really wonder where that comes from. Is that just an assumption? Did they hire Leger to go and do a poll?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Leger is saying we'll get a majority.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Yes. I would trust Leger, because it has us up about 15 points in the polls, but I wonder. If there is a poll, I would ask that the mover of the motion table it. Wouldn't you agree?
12:55 p.m.
An hon. member
Oui.