House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was women.
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Mr. Speaker, minimum sentences for convicted drug traffickers who target kids under the age of 18 was recently overturned by the B.C. Court of Appeal. Our youth need to be protected from drug traffickers who directly target them.
Are the Liberals prepared to challenge this ruling?
Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I have been tasked by the Prime Minister to undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system, including sentencing reform. We are moving forward with this review, engaging with stakeholders, engaging with experts in this area, to ensure that we provide the overall review, which has not been done for many, many years.
We will be reviewing the mandatory minimum penalties and sentences, certainly recognizing that there is a need to punish the more severe serious crimes, while ensuring that we maintain sentences that are appropriate and in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, for the past two weeks, representatives of the International Monetary Fund were in Canada as part of its annual consultations under IMF article IV. The staff of the IMF were here to survey the economic landscape and look forward to Canada's future economic development.
Could the Minister of Finance please share his thoughts on the IMF consultations with the House?
Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to meet with the staff of the IMF last week and to receive their report, which praised our pro-growth fiscal measures.
We are tremendously proud of the path we are on, and we are very pleased that the international community is recognizing that what we are doing here in Canada is having a real and measurable impact. We are looking forward to continuing to work with the international community on inclusive growth, both here and abroad, to make a real difference for Canadians and our world.
Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, last month, UNESCO, which is supposed to be a body dedicated to historical fact, held a bizarre vote. UNESCO's executive board voted overwhelmingly for an offensive resolution denying Jewish history and Israel's ties to Jerusalem's Temple Mount and the Western Wall. Only six states, including the United States and the United Kingdom, voted against.
Canada is not a member of UNESCO's executive board, but we have not heard a peep from the Liberals condemning this outrageous vote. Why not?
Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Canada strongly supports Israel and strongly fights against anti-Semitism on every front. Canada will never do anything other than that. It is something that we are very committed to doing, in every circumstance.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberals voted against the NDP's motion to immediately resolve the problem of diafiltered milk. Instead, the government proudly announced that it was going to spend the next 30 days conducting more consultations with producers and the industry. The industry has lost $18 million. More consultations, no action, and no promise to really solve the problem of diafiltered milk.
Can the minister reassure producers and promise to finally solve the problem of diafiltered milk in the next 25 days?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question and concern. We recognize the importance of this emotional issue for the dairy farmers and we are working to reach sustainable solutions for the whole of the Canadian dairy sector. We will work with the dairy sector and we will come up with a solution to this issue.
Darren Fisher Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, Halifax and Dartmouth have welcomed the Prime Minister and numerous ministers since January. We witnessed a new level of respect for Atlantic Canada from our government. This government understands that Atlantic Canada has a culture of hard work and innovation. In fact, the finance minister kicked off his pre-budget consultations in Nova Scotia.
Would the minister please tell us about the positive change the budget would bring to middle-class Nova Scotian families?
Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be able to go to Nova Scotia to start our pre-budget consultations. Coming from a province that has a huge number of universities, we know that our investment in research infrastructure in universities will make a difference in Nova Scotia.
Budget 2016 is a bold plan. It will help middle-class families and those struggling to join the middle class. Efforts like the Canada child benefit and the top-up to the GIS will help families in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and across Canada.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala has been convicted many times for hate speech, slander, and glorifying terrorism. This evening, he is supposed to put on a so-called comedy show in Montreal.
My question is very simple. Did the government use its power to prevent this man from entering Canada?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, when individuals present themselves at the border to enter into Canada, they are examined by the Canada Border Services Agency. The professional officers of that agency take all relevant factors into account, including the existence of a criminal record.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, Équiterre and the David Suzuki Foundation support the petition against energy east. Like the UPA and millions of Quebeckers, they rightly oppose this project, which threatens our lands and waterways. Unfortunately, the Liberal government does not want to listen and is turning a blind eye to this growing opposition in Quebec.
Will the 40 government members from Quebec continue to support TransCanada or will they stand up for the interests of Quebeckers?
Jim Carr LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, the application to build the energy east pipeline has not yet been lodged with the regulator, the National Energy Board.
There will be many months of public discussion when the hon. member will be encouraged to appear in front of the board, to write a letter, to visit a website, to have conversations with the community about her attitude about whether or not that pipeline is in the national interest. To ask the government to offer an opinion before it is before the regulator is irresponsible.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and its 60,000 businesses are asking the government to do something about the unfair tax treatment that penalizes those who sell their businesses to family members rather than strangers.
Our business people are sick and tired of Ottawa making life difficult for small and medium-sized Quebec businesses. Quebec has already solved this problem. If Quebec were independent, this problem would no longer exist.
My question is as follows: will any of the 40 government members stand up to fix this problem for our business people?
Bill Morneau LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we know that it is very important to have a tax system that works. We think that now, our system works for the people of Quebec and the whole country.
We will review the tax system over the coming year, as announced in budget 2016. The review will give us an opportunity to consider measures that are important for Canada's system.
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, this morning, the House Leader of the Official Opposition moved a motion to remove the provisions concerning veterans from the budget implementation bill and to immediately pass them at all stages. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not support that motion, so I would like to give them another chance to do so.
I therefore ask the House for unanimous consent for the following motion. “That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be divided into two Bills, namely, Bills C-15A and C-15B, as follows: (I) Bill C-15A shall contain all the provisions of the Bill respecting the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to, among other things, (a) replace “permanent impairment allowance” with “career impact allowance”; (b) replace “totally and permanently incapacitated” with “diminished earning capacity”; (c) increase the percentage in the formula used to calculate the earnings loss benefit; (d) specify when a disability award becomes payable and clarify the formula used to calculate the amount of a disability award; (e) increase the amounts of a disability award; and (f) increase the amount of a death benefit; and All the provisions that provide, among other things, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs must pay, to a person who received a disability award or a death benefit under that Act before April 1, 2017, an amount that represents the increase in the amount of the disability award or the death benefit, as the case may be, and the consequential amendments to the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act, the Pension Act and the Income Tax Act; (II) Bill C-15B shall contain all the remaining provisions of Bill C-15 and retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this Order; and That Bill C-15A be deemed read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole—”
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order.
Apparently the hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the House.
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 2017, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of the speeches given by other members.
As I join this debate, I must note, with some amusement, the positively apocalyptic terms in which my friends across the way have described the kind of country we had between January 2006 and October 19, 2015. I thought we were getting on rather well, but to listen to the way in which our country was described during that period, it is as if we narrowly avoided the introduction of some kind of Hunger Games.
Now to be sure, the odds were not always in our favour, and we did go through a significant global financial crisis. However, our performance, when it comes to growth, and inclusive growth, was very strong. The record needs to be corrected, because a poor understanding of the past can set us up for ineffective efforts to shape the future. Indeed, the game-makers of this budget seem to be proceeding as if we were in an alternate reality.
Over the last 10 years, a Conservative government managed Canada through the worst global recession since the Great Depression. The record is well known. There were no bank failures and no tax hikes. Through these years, we had the best economic growth in the G7, the best job creation record, with 1.3 million net new jobs created, and by far the lowest federal debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of it.
We were able to implement a stimulus program, one that was timely, targeted, and temporary. As well, the government delivered a balanced budget one year ahead of schedule.
Now, although the new government wishes to paint a drab picture of Canadian life over the last 10 years, most of these facts are quite beyond dispute. Instead of disputing them, our friends on the other side have sought to claim that this growth has not been inclusive. However, even on that score, the facts do not add up to their assertions.
Here is what Hillary Clinton said about the Canadian middle class in 2014. I know some Liberals may find her too right wing for their liking, but she is the presumptive Democrat nominee. Secretary Clinton said:
Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay, enjoying a stronger safety net, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality.
It is no surprise that even while Donald Trump is modelling his economic policy on Panem, Secretary Clinton is looking to Canada.
There are two principle ways of evaluating the performance of middle class, median net worth and median income, median being a better measure than average in this case, because it prevents the numbers from being skewed upwards by a small percentage of high performers.
Between 1999 and 2012, the median net worth of Canadian families rose by 78%. That translated to more than 50% growth in net worth for every single income quintile, except the lowest which still grew, though by not as much. This is no district 12.
What about median income? According to analysis from the far-right New York Times, a noted supporter of the previous government, Canada had the richest middle class in the world in 2014. Real, or inflation-adjusted median income, in fact, went up more than 20% since the beginning of the last decade, while real median income in the U.S. remained stagnant.
Tracking real economic changes, as opposed to nominal change, is fundamental to a sound description of the economic picture. Nominal indicators always go up, regardless of other factors, because of inflation. Real figures adjust to look at non-inflationary effects. This rather elementary distinction is important but it is something that the game-makers of budget 2016 seem to have missed, and it seems rathe, intentionally.
I read the whole budget after it came out, even though it was not exactly as gripping as The Hunger Games. I know my colleague from Calgary Shepard suggested nominating this book for the Giller Prize in fiction, but I would respond that even good fiction has to be believable.
It was obvious to me already, on page 11 and 12 of this budget, that there was some active and intentional sleight of hand. On page 11 is a graph purporting to show real median wage income of Canadians from 1976-2015. This particular graph paints a rather positive picture, especially of the last 15 years. Although with an increasing number of Canadians self-employed and doing very well, it is sort of strange that this budget focuses on wage income only, instead of overall income.
Then, on page 12, we have a graph that shows increasing household costs. The increases appear to be alarmingly steep, until we realize that the graph is titled “Nominal Increase in Household Costs, Selected Items”.
Aside from the whole selected items issue, the nominal costs of things always go up because of inflation, which is precisely why economists almost always use real or inflation-adjusted numbers. However, this budget document uses real numbers on page 11 when it is talking about wages, and then nominal numbers on page 12 when it is talking about increasing costs, which I think is a transparent attempt to suggest the illusion that costs have grown faster than wages. This is a trick that might catch a lot of people. However, anyone with training in economics would spot the problem right away. Therefore, however riveting the entire document may be, we only have to get to page 12 to see these efforts as sleight of hand, to see the intentional writing of what is respectfully a bit of fiction
The budget game-makers clearly felt it was important to obscure the performance of the Canadian middle class. Why? Because those who get the past wrong often find it easier to get the future wrong as a result. When we have a well-performing economy, we need to focus on preserving and playing to our strengths. However, if the economy is doing poorly, then we are in a stronger position to justify a radical shift.
To justify a politically-motivated radical shift, the Liberal government had to paint this absurdly drab picture of the last 10 years in an effort to explain its decision to blow up hard-won fiscal gains. For the Liberal government, destroying things is much easier than making them.
During the last election, Donald Sutherland came out as a Keynesian, and therefore a New Democrat supporter. In this respect, he is at least consistent with his character. I am sure Katniss Everdeen is more Hayekian, at least in her skepticism about big government. Sutherland's simultaneous endorsement of Keynesianism and the NDP platform perhaps undercut his point that an American resident could be just as up on Canadian politics. I do not recommend taking political advice from American residents named Donald. However, here is the important point about Keynesian stimulus.
Keynes himself saw this policy as a response to only a particular set of circumstances. He thought the economy could be boosted during a short-term economic downturn if the resulting debt was paid off via surpluses during good years. We stimulate the economy during tough years, we pay off our debts during good years, and we balance our budget over the long term. There is obviously some logic to this, but it does require us to correctly diagnose where the peaks and valleys are. If we outspend our revenue during good years as well as bad years, then we will run out of money fairly quickly.
I think Canadians accept that we can and should run budget deficits at certain times, but only at certain times, and only modestly, because we obviously cannot run deficits in perpetuity. Again, we eventually run out of other people's money. Keynes understood that the right policy becomes the wrong policy in the wrong circumstances. The Liberal government promised to run short-term deficits on the basis of their talked-down version of the Canadian economy. However, that $10 billion projected deficit has ballooned to more than double its projected size. Reading this budget, I imagine Canadian voters feel sort of like Gale did during the Quarter Quell. I might call this a betrayal, but for there to be betrayal, there would have to have been trust first place.
Our children will have to pay the price for this profligate spending. They will be forced to scrounge with less because of the government's capricious fiscal game. They did not volunteer for this.
One of the most important insights of The Hunger Games is that politics becomes pernicious when pageantry is elevated over policy. The Liberal government is all about pageantry, and this budget is all about pageantry. However, it tells a story that simply does not accord with the facts on the ground, not in present day Canada anyway.
The basic claims about the situation which the budget seeks to confront are incorrect and therefore its proposals for radical new deficit spending are out of step, even with the Keynesian philosophy on which it is supposed to be based. I am sorry to say that there is no philosophy to this, but there is an overabundance of pageantry. When the global economy catches fire, we may not have the cushion to weather the storm the next time around because the odds will not always be in our favour.
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)
Mr. Speaker, I guess it is somewhat comforting to now realize that the economic theory of the Conservative Party comes from a work of fiction.
Putting aside The Hunger Games and the appetite that leaves us to go after this a bit harder, I am kind of struck by something.
The party opposite often references The New York Times article about how well the middle class is doing. I often wonder if those members have actually read it beyond the headline, because the second paragraph says the following:
Members of the middle class in Canada worry about whether they can afford college for their children and whether their children will find jobs afterward. Housing costs are a major concern, as are everyday costs for transportation and mobile-phone plans. Middle-class Canadians worry about inequality.
In light of the fact that this is what Canadians are worried about, is it any surprise they changed governments in the last election?
However, what surprises me more is that the party opposite often rails about the deficit, somewhat oblivious to the fact that the Conservatives added $150 billion to the debt.
In light of the fact that the member opposite does not believe in Keynesian economics, does not believe we should go into debt when we are not in recession, which the Conservatives did in 2007 well before the 2008 recession, is he willing to resign and sit as an independent because of the disgrace of that party and its record on fiscal management?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member's question was serious.
The The New York Times article points out, and I think Canadians and our party would agree, that things are never perfect, that people can always do better, and always want to do better.
The point the member has missed is that our performance through a global economic recession was better than any other country in the G7. It is right that in challenging global economic circumstances, Canadians would be very conscious of it, one might even say worried about some of the things the member cited. However, that does not change the fact that our relative performance was very strong.
On the issue of deficits, and this is important, through the 10 years of Conservative government, we lowered the overall debt-to-GDP ratio, the economy grew, and there were stimulative deficits that were timely targeted and temporary during a certain period of time.
I did not say that I did not believe in Keynesian economics. I did not really answer that question one way or another. There are merits to a variety of these different ideas. However, the point I made was that the budget was not Keynesian, because Keynes' economic recommendation was for stimulus in times of recession, not for constant deficits. No serious economist would recommend constant deficit, because we eventually run out of other people's money. It just does not make sense.
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to mention to my hon. colleague that indeed, Bill C-15, an omnibus bill, does not make any sense. It will change some 30 statutes, including the Employment Insurance Act and other such legislation.
That being said, it is rather ironic, because the Liberals always criticized the Conservatives for all their omnibus bills in 2011, 2012, and other years.
What does my hon. colleague make of the fact that the Liberals are now making the same anti-democratic move?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, my view is that there are certain cases where we need to have different kinds of measures together in a bill if they broadly accord with something we are trying to do at the same time. However, the member is right to point out a profound disconnect between what the current government members said when they were in opposition and what they are doing now.
We have had the use of time allocation again, for example, as well as the last use of time allocation on one of the most challenging, important, and personal issues that Parliament has dealt with in a very long time. Therefore, there is a big disconnect between what was promised, big changes on some of these procedural things, and now what the government is doing.
I wish the Liberals would have had the courtesy to tell Canadians the truth if they intended on using some of these techniques. They should have told the truth about that during the last election.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Madam Speaker, the member wisely did not answer that last question, because it showed a misunderstanding of the omnibus bill procedure.
I am delighted the budget had so many things for so many Canadians that it had to deal with a number of other acts. However, what it has not done, and what people were incensed about in the past, is include a whole bunch of information from things that are not related to the budget, other issues that government wants to get through, which is the improper use of omnibus bills.