Mr. Speaker, it is great to be in this place addressing Parliament for the first time in many weeks. Of course, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, taking away the opportunity to do so. It is great to be back here and to see my colleagues on all sides of the aisle once again.
I do not think it is any secret that the Prime Minister, we all know, decided to prorogue Parliament because of his involvement in the WE Charity scandal. Following the words of the Governor General, there was absolutely nothing in the Prime Minister's address last night on prime time that could not have been announced in any normal press briefing or even here on the floor of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, of course, as many are saying, pulled the wool over the eyes of our network executives, claiming that it was not partisan politics but an address to the nation on COVID-19. We all know, after the fact, that the address was entirely political, providing further evidence that prorogation was all about distraction.
The nation was treated to the Liberal love for a whole bunch of words about nothing, proudly exclaiming that we are building back better. I think a more accurate slogan is building a better, or worse, bloated bureaucracy. I am sure that slogan did not run as well with focus groups.
The Prime Minister warned Canadians that we might not be able to gather for Thanksgiving dinner in just a few weeks. However, he did serve up his own turkey dinner last night, offering a throne speech overflowing with every failed Liberal promise of the last five years, and then some. Canadians love their turkey dinner, but they can only eat so much. Leftovers get tiresome after a while and they need to be thrown out. Like reheated turkey seven days later, Canadians are now telling themselves that maybe it is time to throw the Liberals out.
The throne speech contained a dizzying number of major policy commitments underwritten by ongoing deficits and debt. Indeed, the speech began with the proclamation that “This is not the time for austerity.” It seems to Liberals that anything short of massive federal spending and bureaucracy equals austerity. To quote the hon. member for Carleton on Twitter yesterday, “The truest statement in the Throne Speech was this one: 'We owe an immense debt...'”.
Recent polling suggests that more than half the country is quite concerned about the recent run-up of deficits and debt. Canadians are asking the government to balance support for emergency pandemic measures with fiscal responsibility, a task that the Liberal government is clearly not up for, opting rather to burden future generations with a massive deficit-financed expansion of government. The throne speech outlined, or actually failed to outline, how the Liberals plan on paying for their grand ideas, which we have heard many times before: simply tax the rich.
Let me be clear to everyone, including the wealthy, that they need to pay their fair share of taxes. The problem is that when taxes are raised substantially, people stop trying to earn the amount of money that is being overtaxed. The formula the Liberals like to use is that if they raise taxes at the top, they can then transfer them to the bottom. However, the Liberals tried that already. People might remember the government increased the top tax rate on Canada's wealthiest 1%. It just happened a few years ago.
What happened? According to The Globe and Mail, high-income earners in 2016 paid $4.6 billion less in federal taxes, despite Liberal pledges that the new top tax bracket would raise around $3 billion in additional revenue. That means a larger burden is taken from the middle to make up for what is lost. There is no other way to do it, other than what the Liberals were doing, which was deficit financing their promises. If they simply tax businesses more, jobs are shed and the costs, if they are able to survive, are then passed on to consumers, increasing the cost of living.
Whether people are rich or otherwise, there is a certain point where they will not stick around to be bled to death. This is not to mention that most predictions about taxing the rich by the left rarely account for the large change in behaviour. They also, by that measure, end up overestimating the tax revenue. Despite the easy target they are, it is not good when wealthy people leave a jurisdiction, province or country. When the tax rate is raised to a level that is too high, it leads to significant legal and illegal tax-avoidance strategies and lowers work effort, including labour force participation.
Liberals know they cannot balance the budget by increasing the top marginal tax rate, but they push those lines anyway. This is called the Tytler cycle by Lord Alexander Tytler. It works, or I should say does not work, by promising a growing number of gifts of largesse from the treasury, but not actually saying how they will be paid. If we think people are going to sit idly by and let the government take, take, take, we are absolutely unrealistic.
Do not forget, whether people are wealthy, middle class or otherwise, if they are investing in anything such as stocks, real estate, whatever, it is done with after-tax dollars.
The left usually says it has a plan for the economy. It always has a plan and it always seems to be planning. However, what it really means is that it wants to have a bunch of bureaucrats and academics lay out a gaggle of endless government programs, in other words, central planning. If one plan fails, it will make another plan. As Ronald Reagan famously said, “the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.”
The Conservatives believe we need to cut taxes, ensure regulations are at a reasonable level and give people the freedom to judge on their own, to provide for their families, to give to charity, to protect the most vulnerable and basically give them the ability to do what is best in their situation. A one-size-fits-all situation does not work. We need freedom. We need the ability for choice.
That is why socialism always fails. There is no incentive to improve one's situation. Why would Canadians work extra hours? Why would a farmer get up at 5 a.m. to plow that field? Why does a trucker drive an extra kilometre? Why does a mechanic take an extra car in the shop at the end of the day? Why do people work a double shift? It is because people want things and things cost money.
Economic growth comes from people exchanging goods and services, for dollars in terms of employment or hours of the day in exchange for dollars. To continually grow a government, where does this money come from? If wealthy people are bad, if growth is bad, if the free market is bad, if individuals choosing between necessity and the trivial is bad, what tree does that money come from? In other words, if everything comes from government, who actually pays for government?
I will point to child care, which falls under my portfolio as the new shadow minister for families, children and social development.
I want to first thank the minister for his service to our country. Although we do not always agree on policy, I look forward to working with him to make life more affordable for Canadian families and to ensure those families get the support they need during these trying times.
Let us talk about the Liberals' child care commitment and their plan.
Let us start with the Liberals' plan. It was promised in 1993, so this is ongoing for anyone who actually believes they are finally going to get around to it.
Let us talk about child care. We want to ensure families have more money in their pockets so they are able to make a choice. We know that the one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best government institution is not going to work for a number of people. Is it going to work for shift workers? Probably not. Is it going to work for people who need variables in their situation? Probably not. People get what they are given whether they like it or not, or want it or not under this situation.
Our plan calls for freedom, the freedom for parents to make the choice that works best for them in their situation.
What the government is also doing is encroaching on provincial jurisdiction. We all know child care is a provincial jurisdiction. What will that do when the federal government tells the provinces and territories that this is what they will do or they will not get their money? It takes away competition.
We as Conservatives know that in many cases, whether it be the Internet or whatever, one of the best ways to fix a problem is competition. If Ottawa tells the provinces how to operate their child care services, how do we fix the problem? The rich will go outside the system and everyone else will take what they get. The Conservative plan encourages competition, which encourages more money back in the pockets of Canadians. We can actually gauge through competition. If what Manitoba is doing in child care works really well, maybe New Brunswick, with its few challenges, could take those best practices and incorporate them into its own provincial situation to improve the lives of those who need child care in its communities. More local and provincial control is what we are talking about in the child care conversation, rather than Ottawa telling the provinces what to do.
As we all know, the Liberals have been promising that since 1993, so the fact that we are expecting them to get it done now I find very hard to believe.