Debates of April 25th, 2022

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this very important question. Protecting our rivers and waterways is extremely important and crucial, and we have an action plan for this. In my riding, the Sackville Rivers Association is dedicated to protecting the waters of the Sackville River.

We have all kinds of action plans, including the creation of a water protection agency or river protection agency. Moving this forward, however, requires a commitment from all Canadians, so we are working with Canadians to develop a broader action plan.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member, right off the top, mentioned build back better. I am wondering how long he has he been getting his talking points from the World Economic Forum.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to remind him of how many deficits the Conservatives, prior to 2015, had in this House.

Looking at what we have put together, the transformative changes are extremely impressive. The economy is very strong, as I indicated. We have 112% of our jobs back. The unemployment rate is down to 5.4%, and the best was 5.3%. Those numbers speak for themselves. Facts are facts.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and talk about things that my constituents, the great people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, care about and to talk a bit about the budget.

Obviously, the budget is the social economic blueprint for the government to give the bureaucracy direction as to what it wants to have done. I looked at the budget in its totality, and it has been billed in so many different ways. It was billed as an affordability budget, which it is not, and as an innovation budget, which it is not. It has been billed as a fiscal return to reality budget, which it is not. It has also been talked about as being a growth budget, but it is really a mass of discombobulated measures. Obviously, a government has to pay attention to a lot of different things. As I said, a budget is its biggest social economic blueprint, but by the same token, I have never seen a budget that seems to be so disconnected from reality.

I am going to pick a couple of different areas where I will list what the government has said it wants to do in this budget and some of the things it has done previously to point out that it is following a very similar path. For example, on the innovation front, we have something called a Canada growth fund. This is brought to us by the government that brought us superclusters, which were not so super, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which Canadians cannot bank on. Now we are on this Canada growth fund.

On page 61 we can read the following:

The fund will be initially capitalized at $15 billion over the next five years. It will invest on a concessionary basis, with the goal that for every dollar invested by the fund, it will aim to attract at least three dollars of private capital.

In standing up the Canada Growth Fund, the government intends to seek expert advice from within Canada and abroad. Following these consultations, details about the launch of the fund will be included in the 2022 fall economic and fiscal update.

Essentially, the government is saying that we have a new shiny object, much as at one point it had the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We do not have any idea yet about the details. The government puts it in the budget and then it will ask people how it can make it work, but it will put aside lots of money for it.

On the money side, Paul Wells, in his shiny new Substack, which, unlike this shiny new program, did not cost taxpayers anything, sought to get to the bottom of this new shiny Canada growth fund and how much it would spend. He could not get an answer on the cost. He asked the government what it would cost. It said that it would cost anything from nothing to who knows what.

This is not the first time an agency was created. In fact, back when Bill Morneau was the finance minister, the Liberals eliminated the Public-Private Partnerships Canada Crown agency, PPP Canada, rather than change its mandate, and brought in the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I asked the minister about this at committee. I said that it would take five years before the government even figured out the governance policies for it, and I asked why it would do that. He said that it was because we needed to get big transformational things done.

Here we are and the only big and transformative thing this bank has done is give its executive and workers bonuses. Therefore, this way of putting out a shiny new object, putting billions of dollars aside for it, and then trying to figure out how it is going to make it work just goes down again as another idea to distract and say that it wants it. Really, the mandate of this new growth fund is almost identical to the infrastructure bank, for which the government has also changed the mandate. It just seems strange to me that it is doubling down on these policies that have been not proven to work in the past.

This is the problem. Rather than, for example, the government saying what it wants to do and then giving out small trial balloons of money to various teams to actually show they have business models that can work and then choosing from among those options if they bear fruit, the government does the worst of big government thinking. It throws money at the wall, see what sticks, and then continues on to throw money at another wall to see what sticks, so we have a Canada Infrastructure Bank we cannot bank on and now we will have a Canada growth fund.

This is the worst element of big government, and the worst part of it is that we are all paying for it and will continue to pay for it even if it does not bear fruit. That is what the current government seems to do. It is always about more; it is never about doing it right.

As to new programs, I have heard a few members talk about this. I want to remind my friends in the NDP, who are going to be taking credit for a new dental program, that the only NDP premier in the Confederation is in my home province of British Columbia. John Horgan is the one who is actually leading the charge in asking the government to please not put money into new government programs since we need it for health care. I spoke to someone in Princeton the other day who has cancer. He is seriously ill and does not have a doctor. I spoke to a would-be medical student too, and for the second year in a row, despite having all the grades, UBC Okanagan does not have a spot for him. In our health care system, the backlog from COVID is large, yet the government is pushing into new areas.

A dentist called me the other day and said that as long as they have been a dentist, they remember the healthy kids program and B.C. one. The healthy kids program is for young people so they can access dental services. B.C. one is for low-income adults. These programs are being provided, and government members are saying this is going to be done this year. I have never seen a new program established that quickly, so it will be interesting to see.

Moving on to a key aspect from a financial perspective, there is no greater challenge to this country right now than inflation. Inflation is hitting Canadians hard and it is affecting our economy. Stephen Gordon, an economics professor at Université Laval, said, “We're at full employment, inflation has burst out of our comfort zone and the Bank of Canada is embarking on an agressive tightening cycle. This not the time for expansionary fiscal policy.”

Stephen Tapp, chief economist from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said, “Here's the thing: Even after raising its nominal policy rate by 75 bps in last two announcements up to 1%, and ending further GoC asset purchases (starting ‘Quantitative Tightening’ next week), BoC policy remains highly stimuluative. The ‘real’ rate has never been this low! Not only is the nominal rate well below the elevated rate of current inflation, so the real rate is negative. The nominal policy rate (1%) is still below the Bank's estimate of neutral (2-3%). Until its rate rises above 2-3%, the Bank is pouring gas on the inflation fire.”

Stephen Tapp is saying that the current policy today is pouring fuel on inflation, and the government is adding more spending. It is completely unheard of. At least the Governor of the Bank of Canada came to committee today with some humility. He said mistakes were made and they are trying to reverse them. They are trying to raise interest rates, obviously being mindful of the fact that we have so much debt in this country.

The government is full charge ahead. It is the spend-DP, as I call it. Again, the ship of state right now is pointed at a spend-DP iceberg. Let us all agree that inflation, especially if it becomes unanchored and persistent, is what makes an economy less efficient at best or hollows it out at worst. We need to make sure that government is constraining its spending so that we do not make inflation worse.

Last, on housing, a member stood up previously and said that we have a first-time homebuyers' tax credit and that it was doubled from $750 to $1,500. This is a tacit admission by the government. House prices have doubled under the Liberals' watch, and this is the very least they can do. We talked about the first-time homebuyers' savings account. Most people do not have $40,000. We have millennials who get bounced by the Liberals' stress test every day.

In summation, the government has thrown a lot into this budget. It is inflationary. It does not do what it needs to. It is the very worst of big government. I hope that the government will start to tighten up and do things it needs to, like getting flood supports to areas that are affected in my riding and in other areas of British Columbia. That would be helpful. However, with the way the government works, it is just pointing the ship of state, as I said, toward that spend-DP-Liberal iceberg.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I really do believe there are a number of Conservatives who completely close their eyes when it comes to economic matters. Do they not realize when they talk about inflation that there are some things they need to factor in, such as that there is a war taking place in Ukraine and there is a world pandemic that has taken place over the last two-plus years?

If we look at the inflation rate in the U.S.A., it is higher than in Canada. If we look at the inflation rate in many of the European countries, it is higher than in Canada. Yes, as a government we have invested in the people of Canada. Yes, this is a budget that will ultimately provide hope and future jobs. By the way, when it comes to jobs, Canada again is ahead of the U.S. in regard to recuperating the jobs that were lost during the pandemic.

I am wondering if my friend would open his eyes and acknowledge that inflation is a concern, but we need to put it into a proper perspective.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Winnipeg for giving me this stimulative lesson. I will say again that Stephen Gordon, professor of economics at Laval University, said, “We're at full employment, inflation has burst out of our comfort zone and the Bank of Canada is embarking on an aggressive tightening cycle. This is not the time for expansionary fiscal policy.”

I am glad to open my eyes to read this to the member. I really hope that he opens up his ears to hear mine.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his mention of the new homebuyer program. We have listened at the finance committee to some of the very real problems that exist in the housing market.

This particular policy innovation, let us call it, is not something that we have heard a lot of people talking about or calling for. I wonder if the member would like to give some reflections on the kinds of housing policy items that would be constructive and would make a difference to make more housing available for more Canadians, versus the risk of a program that allows Canadians to save more money to put into a hot market with constantly escalating prices. The problem is that people continue to throw more money at the same houses in competition. What is the role of the government if not to try to tame that competition so that Canadians can get value for the money they have?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's intervention. He is very thoughtful and I do appreciate his work at the finance committee.

Let us start with supply. Supply needs to happen, rather than giving CMHC $4 billion over the next five years for a program that says it is going to be flexible with municipalities but does not actually say what the money is supposed to do. One of the key aspects we need to do is to have that ready supply. I read in a book recently about the issue that if we do not have housing, then, with the constraints around that, the wealthiest take the best spots and then all the way down it is cruel musical chairs, except with housing.

We need to focus on the supply issue, and I believe that the Government of Canada and the provinces need to start pounding the table with municipalities and saying we have a societal goal here, and that is to get young people where they have that first chance. We need to deal with this. We already have rents that are going out of control. If there were no government controls at the provincial level, we would be having people who would not be able to afford where they are. That is a terrible state for a modern economy. We need to fix this. We are the second-largest land mass in the world. We have always been open to immigration, and yet we have allowed ourselves to be stuck into this problem.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been promising a high-frequency train in my riding of Trois‑Rivières since 2015. This train is an election promise more than anything else.

In the current budget, the sum of $400 million appears to have been allocated to finding an external partner to draw up plans that may be used for something.

How confident does my colleague feel about the government's proposals when the train project has been in the works for 10 years and will probably never see the light of day?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a challenge because the Liberals continually promise things that they either have no idea how to deliver or no intention of delivering. We have seen this with infrastructure. Again, they dangle out that they are going to fund certain things and then they do not do them. When they are promising to deal with transit or even military spending in this budget, here is the question. Three times they tried to procure Browning pistols, yet somehow they say that we are going to be putting more into military spending. They can say they are going to, but whether they actually do it is another thing, until they fix that broken system.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to rise and add the voice of the people of Thornhill to today's debate. I am deeply concerned on their behalf by the latest NDP-Liberal budget. Every single day, we ask the government what it is doing to make life more affordable for Canadians, and every day it tells us how much it is spending. I was hopeful today that we could see some results for the money spent rather than just a projection of answers we will get when, again and again, we ask the government what it is doing to make life more affordable.

The answer for the people of Thornhill and Canadians across the country is that it is doing nothing much. We can skip the partial answers and gloss over the large sums of money in an effort to distract Canadians from the government's failure to deliver actual results for a while, but Canadians had every reason to fear the federal budget, especially after a deal between our colleagues on the other side of the House. The deal is frightening to the future of the fiscal health of Canada, driving the government further and further astray in an effort only to hold on to power, because after seven years, many simply cannot understand the plot.

Canadians were treated to over $50 billion of new spending, which, of course, could have been far worse given the government's propensity to spend beyond its means at every available opportunity. I suppose aiming for “it could have been worse” is the best that we can hope for, but with spending levels that far exceed the prepandemic highs, it could have been much more responsible, and it should have been.

Most troubling, however, is what was absent from this budget, which was any meaningful attempt to address economic growth by lowering taxes and reducing the choking regulations raised by nearly every industry, every stakeholder and every union at every opportunity, only to fall on what are seemingly deaf ears. Families are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. That much is clear. In survey after survey and poll after poll, they have made their voices heard loud and clear. Two-thirds of Canadians say that inflation and affordability are their top concerns. It is hard to get by. That is what that means.

I know members of the House hear that refrain constantly when they are at home in their constituencies. It is hard not to. It is hard not to run into somebody we know at the grocery store or the gas station who does not bring up the cost of living as the first issue they talk about, yet after two of the highest spending sprees in Canadian history, even before the gigantic splurge during the pandemic, the Liberal government had bigger spending plans all along. Child care, dental care and the possibility of pharmacare in 2023 represent the biggest social program expansion in the past couple of decades. While there might be gleeful cheers from the other side, I think Canadians, including members opposite, need a reality check on the numbers. They tell a very different story about our fiscal health than the fairy tales we have been hearing about.

Liberals are coming in with a federal debt projected to reach $1.25 trillion this fiscal year. Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is 47.6%. We have a $52.8-billion deficit. We have a record high of personal indebtedness to disposable income of over 186%. We have inflation at a staggering 6.7%, and the reality that the Bank of Canada will aggressively raise interest rates beyond what we have already seen. There is more. There will be more reality checks for those who will be responsible for the sharpest rise in cost-of-living expenses in a generation.

The problem is that inflation is only going to get worse, not better, over the coming months. It will be much worse than I have ever seen and than most adults today have ever seen. Maybe they heard stories from their parents' trials and tribulations or saw a historical reference in a book, but while some in the House are not students of monetary policy, and that is fine, others will know that the latest inflation numbers do not account for the increase in the carbon tax or the annual increase in alcohol and tobacco taxes.

Also missing from that number is the recently hiked interest rate. It is the first of the aforementioned number of raises that may, of course, lower inflation over time, but in the immediate term, will drive up housing and borrowing costs. There is more. We also learned that Stats Canada will add used-vehicle prices to the CPI in next month's report. For those who are still keeping score, that may bring us to about 8%. This will be a new number for many Canadians, and most certainly a disastrous new number for average Canadians.

While members opposite will twist themselves into a frenzy listing off the countries and their corresponding inflation rates, Canadians should know that, if this was an entirely international problem, then others would mirror our rates, others like Japan or Australia. I could do the same thing.

There are two ways to control inflation. One, of course, is the rate hikes, the aggressive rate hikes we are about to see, and the other is to slow spending. We see no evidence of slower spending. That should be of great concern to the over 65% of Canadians who have indicated that inflation and affordability top their list of anxieties.

Many of these numbers may be abstract to those across the aisle, because it is the only plausible explanation for why they continue to spend at this rate, but let me remind members of the real toll that these abstract numbers have on Canadians working harder and simply not getting ahead. Gasoline is up 11.9%, compared to just February, and a shocking 39.8% compared to a year earlier. Some might find glee in that, whispering to themselves quietly that the plan is working. To them I say that it is actually not working. It is hurting Canadian families. It is hurting our industry. It is hurting our recovery, on the odd chance that the government might want to include oil and gas in their plans.

How about the groceries? I cannot think about why a government would be ideologically opposed to food as they would be opposed to oil, so let me try to get its attention with the cost of groceries in the country. It is an area where people notice it the most. It is an area that I am sure members opposite have heard about in their constituencies from their neighbours time and time again.

Overall, grocery prices have gone up 8.7%, but most items are much, much higher. On average, the basket was $100 last March, and it is almost $109 this March, but for some items, the increase is much, much more severe, such as for milk, cheese, butter, cereal and beef. These are the staples.

These are unsustainable increases for most family budgets, and most families will tell us that. To make matter worse, our country is confronting supply chain constraints, scarcity of materials and labour shortages, all compounded, of course, by a war in Ukraine. We are seeing the continued rise of unaffordable housing for those trying to make the dream of home ownership a reality, as well as urgent military commitments in a time of global instability and an infrastructure deficit lacking the private capital investments we need to actually get things built. Even more concerning is the lower productivity and lagging long-term growth and what that means for GDP per capita.

Its decline relative to those of our allies is the appalling reality of the government's policy failures and the likely failure on the horizon for the magnitude of promises in the wings, which we have not even seen reflected in the government's upcoming fiscal document. The government's approach has become a silly mix of virtue signalling and expensive promises and rerun after rerun of not being able to deliver on them. How does a government spend so much and accomplish so little? How does a country rack up so much debt for the goodies that it believes we need today without thinking for a moment about tomorrow?

What is of greater concern are the policies of intrusion into people's lives, the intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, the pretend projects about tree planting and an ideological drive against the country's natural resources at a time when the world is begging for them.

The government has trafficked in divisiveness, othering those who do not agree with them while affecting economic fortunes at the cost of choosing winners and losers in different geographies based on different identities they see as tolerable and therefore worthy of their reward. Now the concern is that the NDP influence will accelerate this spending, pump up the virtue signalling and leave future generations with a bill, just so activists and alarmists could be placated in 2022 without thinking about a day in the future.

A laser focus on growth would have helped the multitude of fiscal, economic and social problems brought on by the government, and still, I suppose we should be relieved, though hardly gratified, that this could have been worse. If the government was aiming for “it could have been worse”, then, I guess, mission accomplished, but on this side of the House, we think Canadians deserve better.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech from my colleague from across the way, and she particularly talked about the debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada. I think what she misses is the bigger picture, and in the bigger picture we have the second lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7 countries, at least for 2021. We have prepared ourselves in a way that allows us to benefit from the investments we made in Canadians during the pandemic by coming out stronger on the other end of the pandemic. We are seeing that with the levels of employment and we are seeing that with the economic growth in Canada.

I realize that Conservatives will quite often say, “Do not worry about what other countries are doing; just worry about what is happening in Canada.” The reality of this situation is that in a global economy and with a global market, where we are continually interchanging goods and services throughout the world, we cannot look at one country in isolation.

I am wondering this. Can the member at least comment on the fact that we do have the second-lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 countries, and does she think that is a good thing?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is explaining to someone in his riding who is telling him that the cost of groceries is going up, that the cost of gas is going up, that the cost of rent is unaffordable or that their kids cannot move out of their basement, I am wondering if he states the debt-to-GDP ratio as a statistic for his support.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You said it, not me.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that he is yelling about it now, but I am wondering if that is the answer he gives to constituents when they talk about an affordability crisis that has happened under his government's watch.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I just want to say I was asking her a question about something she said.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks a lot about inflation. She also talks about housing. Access to housing is a huge problem.

One way to combat inflation is to increase housing supply. I would like her to tell us about the measures announced in the budget, which, in my opinion, are still too weak.

I would like to hear her thoughts on this. What measures could we take to quickly increase housing supply, and in particular social housing?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right on the issue of supply, when it comes to the government's housing plan. I think the government has lacked any creation of supply or any significant creation of supply within our housing market, which is why we are seeing unaffordable 50% rises in places like the GTA, where I am from. I think the government needs to get on an aggressive track to build more, and we know from this budget that not a single home will be built this year. I asked the minister about it earlier today and he certainly could not give an answer, so I agree with the member that this is a supply-side solution where more of the same programs are not going to get houses built.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago Conservative MPs, including this one, were in the House arguing that we needed to increase our defence budget by $24 billion, but they opposed the increase in dental care that many Canadians, including ones in her riding, would benefit from.

How does the member justify denying people the dental care they need because it is too expensive, but also wanting to spend three times as much on our defence spending?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the government does neither in this budget. The government promised to increase defence spending to the 2% NATO target, and it fell short of that. If the member wants to come to my riding, he can run in a provincial election that is happening in Ontario on June 2 to provide dental care for the residents of Ontario. That is an incursion into provincial jurisdiction. The member knows that, and this is a false promise.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 6:15, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment now before the House.

The question is on the subamendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the subamendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #56

The Budget

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.