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—