Debates of April 21st, 2021

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have continued, since the beginning of this pandemic, to help many seniors, recognizing their struggles. I believe there was a total of $1,500 or $1,800 in additional bonuses that went to seniors over the last year, since the beginning of this pandemic, to help many of them. We have again invested in the budget in the area of long-term care and a lot of the areas that affect seniors in different ways. As I said earlier, all of us in the House would have loved to be able to spread additional financial supports going forward, but we will continue to work forward in a positive way to ensure an improvement in the quality of life for all seniors in Canada.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the budget the government put forward some dedicated funding for sexual and reproductive health services and access. However, it is such a small amount that it does nothing to help clinics, like the one in New Brunswick, and does nothing to expand the services that women need for those reproductive services. The government has not invested in midwifery services, where women on the ground in remote and rural areas could provide excellent service to women. It has not provided greater access for a pharmacare program for access to birth control.

Could the member talk about that?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have transferred an additional $4.3 billion to the provinces, another $1.2 billion to support health care capacity in a variety of areas, and $740 million to address the immediate needs in supportive care and to provide health and social supports for other groups and organizations. We have transferred millions of dollars to the provinces specifically for health care and health care-related issues, and I would expect the questions my colleague has mentioned are areas that the provinces will be sensitive to and will ensure they have sufficient funding.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Madam Speaker, budget 2021 is a budget about investing in the future of our country; investing in the next industrial revolution and our digital transformation; investing in a cleaner, healthier environment and a new, green economy; investing in the participation of all Canadians in the economy, including women.

What we have put forward is a plan to see our business community through to the end of this pandemic and be well positioned for growth on the other side. Over a year ago, as the House knows, we introduced the Canada emergency wage subsidy, a program the like of which we had never before seen. This has directly supported the paycheques of more than five million Canadians, saving countless jobs and helping employees and employers stay afloat.

We also created the emergency rent subsidy, which has covered up to 90% of the rent of our small business owners for over 150,000 entrepreneurs and Canadian businesses across the country. I hear it from so many small business entrepreneurs: These programs have been a veritable lifeline. That is why in this budget we have set aside funding to extend these emergency pandemic business supports.

However, let us be clear. Canadian entrepreneurs want to grow. They want to prosper. They want to hire more workers, and they want to succeed in a strong and stable economy. Our budget creates the right incentives for growth in many different ways. From the Canada recovery hiring program, which is going to offset some of the costs of creating new jobs or increasing wages or hours, to the digital adoption program, which helps cover the costs of doing business online, we are supporting a strong recovery.

One of the very important economic lessons of the pandemic is that e-commerce is not a “nice to have”; it is a necessity. The digital economy is here, and it is here to stay. A 2020 study revealed that half of Canadian businesses currently operating online started doing so only within the last year. As we continue to promote the importance of our export market and all of the opportunities that are available to Canadian businesses through our many international trade agreements, being able to sell Canada's goods and services online is a key ingredient to further economic growth.

So is Canadian innovation. I think of the potential of applied research in this country. From the possibilities of quantum technology, in which we are investing $360 million, to our expertise in artificial intelligence, in which we are investing an additional $445 million, to our investments in photonics, genomics and more, the federal government is stepping up to support an economic recovery on the cutting edge of technology. This is where the world is going. This is where the economy of tomorrow is going, and Canadians will be there at the front of the pack.

When I think about it, this technology- and innovation-driven economy of tomorrow is practically an investment in Montreal's ecosystem and Quebec's emerging industries.

Think of the AI-powered supply chains supercluster here in Montreal, which will harness robotics. Think of Quebec's biomanufacturing industry. Think of innovative companies such as Medicago, which is developing a 100% made-in-Canada COVID-19 vaccine as we speak.

We are very fortunate to have leading research institutions such as the Université de Montréal, Polytechnique Montréal, HEC Montréal and IRIC. They will be vital to strengthening our national biomanufacturing capacity.

Think of the aerospace industry, too. This industry is based in Quebec and contributes more than $28 billion to the GDP. With its investment of $2 billion, the federal government is recognizing the importance of our Quebec industries. These investments will put the industry in a strong position once restrictions are lifted. It is also an acknowledgement of the power of Quebec voices within our federal government.

When Quebeckers are wondering whether to vote for an opposition party or a governing party, and when Quebeckers see what we can accomplish as members from Quebec and as a Quebec caucus within the government, the answer is quite clear.

We are here to advocate for Quebec with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, in order to fulfill our commitments to Quebec and make sure the budget responds to our priorities with money, political will and meaningful results.

We cannot talk about the economy of tomorrow without talking about the green transition, which cannot be put off to another day. That day has arrived.

Is the federal government spending a significant amount of money in this budget? The answer is yes. These are real numbers that reflect a real plan to combat climate change. Our budget proposes nearly $18 billion for Canada's strengthened climate plan. These measures position Canada to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 36% by 2030.

Investing in our fight against climate change can and will be an engine of growth for our economy. This investment is critical, not only to protect the planet that we all inhabit and need in order to live, but also to grow and to prosper.

Through this budget, we are supporting the manufacturers of zero-emission technologies by cutting their taxes in half, and to spur new investments in clean tech, we are proposing to set aside $1 billion to fund specific projects. These are investments that will protect our environment for our children and our grandchildren, but they will also create the jobs we need today.

Our government is moving with the times. We can see where global investors are headed, and we need to be there for the pass. Canada must move ahead of the puck. This budget will get us there. Climate change is real, and $18 billion in new green investments is real money. This is concrete action on climate change, and it will have a transformative effect on our economy.

Before I close, as a mother of a three-and-a-half-year-old, I cannot speak to the budget without speaking to the importance of the historic investment we are proposing for early learning and child care for parents, for families and, of course, for the full participation of women in our economy.

As the parliamentary secretary for small business, I also cannot speak to the budget without speaking to the importance of our additional investments in the women entrepreneurship program. As a government, we are committed to tackling, head-on, the “she-cession” that Canada and so many other countries are facing right now. We have shown, through this budget, that a feminist economic recovery not only is possible but will bring home huge dividends.

This program is all the more important because, as we know, the crisis has particularly affected women. Since the start of the pandemic, more than 16,000 women have left the workforce, while almost 100,000 men joined it.

Quebec has the highest rate of participation of women in the economy in Canada and among the most impressive internationally. In fact, women in Quebec with children under the age of 3 have one of the world's highest participation rates in the economy. As a woman and a mother and, of course, as a Quebecker, I am proud to see that Quebec is once again leading the way for the rest of the country.

Our pan-Canadian early learning and child care plan is a plan for Canada’s future. What we propose in the budget is a plan to support Canadians today, while laying the foundation for a greener, more modern, more dynamic and more inclusive economic recovery.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. I would also like to ask her three questions.

First, as a Quebecker, as she herself mentioned in her speech, does she agree with the federal government’s plan to impose standards for seniors homes in Quebec that they will have to meet in order to receive funding?

Second, does she agree that Quebec should receive funding for this new national child care program she says she wants to implement in the coming years? We know that it will take several years before the program is rolled out in other provinces, just like it took several years in Quebec.

Third, does she think that dairy producers should have received compensation in the budget for the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked several questions, and I will try to answer them in the time I have.

First, I am indeed very proud to be able to launch a pan-Canadian child care program. In my case in particular, as a mother, I waited three years before getting a day care place in Montreal. I know that Quebec is leading the way for the rest of the country, but we also need to make sure we have enough places for children in Quebec. I think that federal transfer payments could help improve the system we have in place in Quebec.

In terms of health transfer payments, especially for long-term care, it is essential that we continue to support the provinces so that we can provide proper care to our seniors. I think that national standards are important in ensuring that Quebec seniors—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The parliamentary secretary's time has run out, and we need to move on to another question.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, we know that for decades millions of Canadians have had no access to the prescription drugs they need to be well and even to live.

In 1997, Liberals said that if Canadians elected them, they would bring in pharmacare. They broke that promise. In the 2019 throne speech, right after being elected, the Liberal government said, “pharmacare is the key missing piece of universal health care in this country. The government will take steps to introduce and implement national pharmacare so that Canadians have the drug coverage they need.” The 2021 budget contains nothing to fulfill this promise.

We know the hon. member and her Liberal colleagues voted against the NDP's Canada pharmacare act in February. Will the member come clean with Canadians and just admit that the Liberal Party does not believe in public pharmacare and simply is not committed to implementing it?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously pharmacare is an extremely important issue in this country. As he pointed out, it was in the throne speech. It is a commitment that we made in the last election, and it is a commitment we made again in the throne speech. We will fulfill that commitment. It is important that all Canadians have access to medication at a reasonable cost. We will follow through.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how she feels about the government tabling a budget like this, which fails to keep many of its promises.

I am thinking in particular about the next generation of farmers. The government has been promising to help this sector since 2019. It even held discussions with representatives of the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec and promised them that there would be measures to support them in the budget. However, the budget does not mention anything of the kind.

Also, how does she feel about the government promising to help seniors but creating two classes of seniors in the budget?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has brought up an extremely important subject, but I obviously do not have enough time to answer properly.

With respect to our support for seniors, the number of seniors living in poverty has declined by 25% since we were elected in 2015. Our government is there for seniors, and we will continue to support them.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate tonight, pursuant to Standing Order 52, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

I hear none. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, at long last, two years after the last budget presented by the Liberals, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to their latest proposal to Canadians.

We remember that the budget at that time was very much crafted and timed to distract attention away from what we all now remember as the SNC-Lavalin scandal. That budget was tabled when the Prime Minister was avoiding questions and was under intense pressure. We would later learn, through the tabling in this House of the report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Trudeau II report, that the Prime Minister did indeed interfere in the prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin.

Here we are now, in the middle of a pandemic. Last spring, the government had no intention of introducing a budget. In the meantime, the Liberals have shut down Parliament to avoid tough questions about another scandal that involves this Prime Minister where members of his family received half a million dollars. He then gave that organization half a billion dollars because it needed a bailout. Of course, those are his friends at the WE organization.

We did not get a budget when we returned to Parliament in the fall. Instead, what we got was a Speech from the Throne, which does not match this budget. It was followed by committees being filibustered. We are not talking about just one or two committees. We are talking about the ethics committee and the finance committee, which should have been dealing with pre-budget consultations. We are talking about the procedure and House affairs committee, and of course the national defence committee was filibustered too.

Finally this spring, we have a budget from the government. While the last budget was tabled in its form to cover up the tough questions being asked as a result of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, which saw the Prime Minister fire Canada's first female indigenous attorney general, and kick her and Dr. Jane Philpott out of caucus for speaking truth to power. We now have a budget tabled during a pandemic, and it really is a remarkable opportunity. The government has the runway to make investments in provincial health care.

We hear an awful lot from the government about the $8 in $10 that was spent in relief funds during this pandemic coming from the federal government. I can give another number that the government might find helpful: 100% of the money spent by governments during the pandemic came from taxpayers.

Therefore, here we are in the third wave of the pandemic, and the third wave of lockdowns, and the health care system is bursting at its seams. The health care system had funding challenges before the pandemic. During the 2019 election, the Conservatives made specific commitments with respect to increasing health transfers to the provinces.

The pandemic is in full swing. We are in the third wave. There are lockdowns. Hospitals are screaming for help, and provinces need more resources. However, we are not seeing, in this historic document from the government, that investment in the provinces and in health care. I started talking about health care, of course, because we are in the middle of a global pandemic.

There is another item that was noticeably absent. Members in this House will recall and members on the government side will remember that the House did move to adopt a national three-digit suicide prevention hotline. It is a tremendously important initiative, 988, so that Canadians from coast to coast to coast know that those three digits are all they need to remember in a time of crisis. We have seen the effect this pandemic has had with respect to the mental health of all Canadians, and there has really not been a lot of the heavy lifting the government would need to do to implement that motion, which was adopted by this House. It is also missing.

When these items that we know would be incredibly helpful, timely and life saving are absent, their absence from the budget speaks to the intent. The intent, of course, and the reason there is so much preamble in the budget, and I think it is the longest budget in terms of number of pages we have ever seen in this country, is because it is meant to resemble an election platform.

I will note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, and I look forward to his intervention to talk a little more about why this is not a pandemic relief budget, not a jobs budget and not an economic recovery budget but, in fact, an election budget.

I received a call at my office yesterday from Helen, a constituent who is quite concerned about the fate of our country. I think that is pretty normal. We all have great hopes and aspirations for what our county will look like. Now, Helen is in her nineties, so she has seen a lot of changes in this country. She has been around for a lot of days. However, Helen's concerns are not for her next days, but for her great-grandchildren's. She is wondering what is going to happen when we have more debt wracked up by this Prime Minister than all the debt wracked up by all the prime ministers previous to him. She wonders who will pay that back.

Concerning the urgency to introduce a budget, we did not expect that from this government, because this Prime Minister, of course, famously said that the budget would balance itself and that we would have very modest deficits during his first term. Now, of course, during the Liberals' first mandate, there was not a global pandemic or a global economic recession, but they blew the doors off the bank and plunged our country deep into deficits. Then, when they got another mandate, they found themselves in crisis and plunged us even further with new deficits and a much larger debt, breaking the $1-trillion mark.

There was spending that had to happen during the pandemic, and I am talking about important measures such as the Canada emergency wage subsidy. For that, the government proposed 10%, but the opposition parties said that was not enough and that it needed to be more. Members will hear the Liberals say, “Oh well, the opposition says we are spending too much money, but they do not seem to want us to spend any money.”

Well, we want them to spend targeted money. It is not just about spraying hundreds of billions of dollars and hoping for electoral fortune as a result. We want targeted measures that help Canadians' livelihoods and their lives. That is why that 75% emergency wage subsidy received the unanimous support of all parties in the House.

However, there are a number of things that this government ought to have done with this budget document that it failed to do. Just like Helen, when we look at what the budget should be focused on compared with what the Liberals did focus on, we are left wondering, my goodness, who will pay for this debt hangover. Certainly it will be Helen's great-grandchildren, which does, of course, give her reason to be concerned.

The debt has, as referenced by my colleagues, become a bit of a time bomb for this country. We need to hope and pray that we do not end up in a situation with rising interest rates where our debt servicing costs eclipse our ability to be able to transfer more money to the provinces. The Prime Minister has said that he would give more money to the provinces for health care when the health care emergency is over. I am not really sure how we ended up with that as the best case.

Right now, Canadians are looking for targeted measures, such as for the tourism sector. We were looking forward to the government wanting to climb down into local jurisdictions, helping with chambers of commerce that are seeking rapid tests for its businesses that are employing people in the community. While we find ourselves in this third wave of lockdowns, this third wave of the pandemic, we expected something more than an election document and a lifetime of debt from this government.

We look forward to continuing to review it, but I have as many questions for the members opposite as I am sure they have for me.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's remarks on the budget and I wondered where there would be criticism, but he never had any, other than the debt, which is a necessary investment so there is an economic future for Helen's grandchildren.

The budget is all about that. It is about the future for Helen's grandchildren and all grandchildren across the country. It carries on some of the spending we had to do to take care of the health concerns of Canadians and to get in more vaccines ahead of the time for which had been originally planned. The problem with vaccines is not that they are not here; it is distribution in certain areas that will not get them out and into arms.

We heard a lot of wild stories from the member about what happened last summer, but we are talking about a budget in April 2021, which covers a lot of bases. Does the member not recognize that 90¢ out of every $1 that has been spent on the COVID pandemic comes from the federal government?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Malpeque mentioned 90¢. I will give another number: 100% came from taxpayers. There was talk about debt. He said that I did not talk about the budget. I talked about what was missing from the budget. Health care transfers are desperately needed by the provinces. That is missing from the budget.

While there are a lot of aspirations in the budget and a lot of future debt to be paid by Helen's great-grandchildren, who will be paying for this, the Liberals missed the mark on spending where it mattered most, particularly with respect to health and mental health. We are looking for that.

If we want to talk about what happened last summer, the government should have been developing domestic vaccine manufacturing, not partnering with Chinese-based and owned CanSino.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke at length about the importance of investing in health in order to get out of the crisis. The government may have announced that it wants to make stable, predictable health transfers, but that does not mean that it is prepared to commit to giving the provinces what they want, which is to increase the Canada health transfer to 35%.

His Conservative colleagues have already told me that we will have to see what is left in the coffers after the crisis. That is exactly what the Liberal Party said: that we will have to wait until the crisis is over to see where we stand financially.

If there is one sector that should not be subjected to austerity measures or penny-pinching, it is health. Every time pennies are pinched from the Canada health transfer, someone somewhere does not get service, and someone somewhere has their colonoscopy postponed because patients are being triaged and not enough money has been transferred.

Since the 1990s, the Liberals and Conservatives have been cutting back on health care, year after year—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to tell the member opposite that, in 2021, these Conservatives are looking for increased spending on health care for all the reasons she listed. It will create a delayed public health crisis when we have not had all the diagnostic testing done, which is normally done when hospitals have been shut. Certainly this will have a negative effect on people's mental health, but also on their life expectancy and favourable outcomes on otherwise historically treatable and curable illnesses. That is why we need to make more investments in health care today.

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

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats have long recognized that seniors are struggling and that they require more assistance through programs like the old age supplement. That is why we opposed the Conservatives when they raised the eligibility age from 65 to 67. It is why we have called on the government now to ensure that the OAS increase it has talked about is not just for seniors 75 and older, but for all seniors over 65.

I invite the member to comment on that.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we want to see from the government and what it will need to explain is why it made the decisions with respect to age cut-offs. It is important that we provide help for seniors who have been affected in a terrible way. Many of them have paid with their lives during this global pandemic. We to need to ensure the country is there to support them, seniors of all ages, and that the commitments by the government reflect the actual needs of seniors.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think members on the other side expect I will be glowing in my commentary regarding their budget. If they are, I am sorry to disappoint them.

I was in the House when the Minister of Finance presented the budget, and I was taken aback at one point when she seemed to be very proud, in fact she mentioned it twice, that the Liberals only spent $354.2 billion. She said that they restrained themselves by not spending an extra $30 billion that were in their projections. She repeated it twice and I thought to myself “$354 billion”.

The fact is that when the Liberals won the election in 2015, despite having fewer people voting for them, but that is our first past the post system which is fine, they were given a surplus. They said that they would run a deficit of $10 billion and never came through with that projection. They never came through on any of their projections as far as the deficit goes.

Last year's spending, 2020 to 2021, was 35 times more than the deficit they projected when they first came into power. It as if the Liberals have lost the sense of the worth of money, of fiscal prudence. If Larry and Martha, or any other small business owner or Canadian, were to borrow money and spend all their savings as the Liberals have, they would be in an extremely precarious state, probably evicted from their home. The Liberals are taking us down this risky path and they seem to be quite nonchalant about that.

The government does not seem to feel that what has happened to nations across the world and throughout history applies to Canada. We are Canadians. The laws and principles of the natural world of science, which Liberals like to affirm, also apply to economics. If people step over a cliff, they will go down, even if they are wearing a Canadian flag on their t-shirt.

I think of Argentina, a large and beautiful country. I have not been there but have read about it. It has many natural resources and a large immigrant population. A large European population went there during the late 1800s and early 1900s. For decades in the 20th century, it outgrew Canada and Australia in population growth and per capita growth, and was one of the 10 richest nations in the world. However, it made some poor economic choices and ended up defaulting nine times on its economy. Its inflation was in the double digits, and up to 5,000%, which wiped out the prosperity of the middle class. In the 1970s, it had a few years of sound economic policies, but then it started to go further and further into deficits and its external debt tripled in three years. People lost their savings.

Let us go a few thousand kilometres north to Venezuela. Venezuela is another story. It has the largest reserves of oil in the world. It was the wealthiest nation in South America. In 1998, President Chavez was elected, and his vision was to greatly expand social services, take people out of poverty and implement his socialist agenda. We know now how that fared. Five million people have fled that nation. People have gone hungry. The average weight of individuals has gone down many pounds, or kilograms. There are real shortages of any basic supplies, gasoline, everything. It is a disaster. It is harassing the press and has closed down independent outlets. It has taken over hundreds of private businesses. It has increased money supplies, and borrowing is out of control.

I can hear people saying that I am being an alarmist and that we should not to be so ridiculous. I ask them to open their eyes to what is happening in Canada today.

How many rights and freedoms have been sidelined in our society because of COVID, and responding to medical needs and safety? Who would have believed we would be in the situation we are in right now a year and a bit ago? I do not think anybody would have. Borders are virtually closed. In British Columbia, and I am a member of Parliament from there, people are not supposed to travel outside their health authority. Places of worship have been closed. People are unable to see family, to attend funerals and weddings. People are dying alone. There are suicides. People are afraid.

I personally know a lot of people who have COVID. I had an uncle who passed from it. I am not saying that this is not real; it is very real. However, who would have imagined we would be in this situation? I would have imagined being in the House speaking. Now a few people are here and a few are in the virtual world. Who would have imagined this situation?

Why am I talking about this right now? It is because I am talking about the budget. I am talking about the problems that could happen to Canada. A year and a half ago we could not have imagined losing the freedoms we have lost right now. I do not think the other nations, which were doing so well, could have possibly imagined that their economies would collapse. That could happen in Canada. Let us not kid ourselves; this is serious business.

The Fraser Institute says that only 12% of the budget will go to directly support COVID measures. The rest or a lot of it is pre-election pandering. I know there is some really good stuff in the budget that sound really good, for example, the child care provisions. The only thing with the child care provisions is that they have been promised since 1993, under Chrétien and Martin. The Liberals have always promised it, but it does not show up. I have no doubt the Liberals will get a bottle of wine to celebrate the opening a few spots for child care.

I was talking to a member of Parliament a year ago. I said that we should not be surprised to be meeting in a few months. I was actually thinking it would be a few weeks. I was watching what was happening with COVID. He looked at me like I was crazy. I phoned my kids to talk about buying a place. I told them not to tell anybody, but I recommended they stock up.

Let me speak about a nation a little closer to home. How about Canada? Let us talk about Canada. Let us talk about Prime Minister Trudeau.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that he is not to use the name of the Prime Minister or any other MPs in the House. He has 30 seconds to wrap.

The hon. member.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the former prime minister who was related to the current Prime Minister. The government start spending way more than the revenue it received. There were large deficits and increasing debt. The federal spending became 20% of the economy. Now it is 30%. We have a high debt crisis, high inflation and 650,000 people unemployed. Inflation is at 12%. Unemployment is at 12%. The lending rates are at—