Debates of Oct. 17th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the point is that in the last weeks, in the last months, and we can even say in the last years, governments applied some policies that did not work. Those policies are not working. This is the reality. This is why we need to have a more common sense plan to address this difficult and touchy issue. The point is that in the last years, those policies did not work.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's opposition motion debate. I first want to congratulate the Conservatives on bringing forward a motion that is not directly associated with the issue they have been bringing forward time after time in the House. Now, we get to talk about something a bit different, although I do have great concern with the premise of the motion they have brought forward. The “whereas” clauses and the assertions they have made are, I think, wholly inaccurate, and I look forward to explaining that in the next 10 minutes or so.

This country certainly took on a lot of debt in order to support Canadians from coast to coast during the pandemic, and we have certainly had to take on our fair share to do that, much of which was unanimously approved by the House, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic. However, it is always important to look at things in terms of context. Obviously, debt is significantly affected by GDP, the amount a country is able to produce in terms of economic activity, because that is exactly what will end up supporting that debt. When we talk about the debt in this country and when we look at the debt-to-GDP ratio, Canada is actually doing quite well.

As a matter of fact, if we look at our debt-to-GDP ratio, we are at 14%. Some people might ask whether that is good or bad. That is fair, because I do not think everybody is an economist and knows the default answer to that, but let us compare that 14% in Canada to the percentage for our G7 partners. France is at 99%. Germany is at 47%. Italy is at 129%. Japan is at 161%. Probably the two most comparable to us, the U.K. and the United States, are at 95% and 96%. When we talk about our debt levels, it is extremely important to compare where we stand on them to the position of our G7 counterparts, our most comparable economies in the world. In that regard, we are in an extremely good position.

I would add that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants today.

That is very important for context. I know that Conservatives, including this lot here, like to come into the House and routinely tell us about how theirs is the only party that knows how to introduce a balanced budget. They may want to go ahead and cheer and clap now, because usually they do that when I try to pay them a compliment, before I add the “but”.

It is really important to consider this: Conservatives will tell us that they know how to balance budgets, but if we look back to—

[An hon. member]

We do.

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

Madam Speaker, they said “we do”. They will then have to explain the following facts to me and why they did the following. Since 1990, there have been only two prime ministers who have significantly added a surplus or balanced a budget. They were Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. This is interesting, because Conservatives will always say that Stephen Harper balanced budgets, but no, he did not, and Brian Mulroney never had a single balanced budget. Stephen Harper did not really either, and I will explain why. The first two budgets Stephen Harper brought into Parliament were on the heels of Paul Martin's surpluses that he had been running for years. The Conservatives certainly squandered those surpluses and went into a deficit position very quickly.

Of course, Conservatives also like to tell us, and I have heard it already this morning, that they left the fiscal state of this country in great shape in 2015 with the last budget they presented in a last-ditch effort to get Canadians to vote them into office one more time. They brought forward a “balanced budget”, and for the purposes of Hansard, I should say I am putting “balanced budget” in quotes, but they did it on the backs of veterans by closing Veterans Affairs offices. They sold off our shares of GM at the time at bargain prices in order to get that off their balance sheet. They did a whole host of things in order to portray the illusion that they had balanced the budget, when they really had not. They did it at the expense of Canadians and the investments the government had on behalf of Canadians.

I know that many will say this was so long ago, 10 years ago for Harper and even longer for Mulroney. Fine, let us just get back to this lot of Conservatives right here. All of them who are here today ran on Erin O'Toole's plan in the last election, and that plan was to run deficits for a minimum of 10 years. Here we have a group of Conservatives who are now coming into the House with a motion that says to develop a plan for a balanced budget by October 25 of this year, a week and a half from now. Meanwhile, they had no intention of doing so when they were running in the last election. They did not care when they were knocking on doors and presenting their plan to Canadians. The plan from Erin O'Toole and the Conservatives was to run deficits for at least 10 years. That is the reality of it.

This should be concerning to Canadians, because this is not the first time that we are seeing hypocrisy come out of the Conservatives. It is actually the second time. They also ran on a plan to introduce a price on pollution and to modify the existing price on pollution that this side of the House had. They ran on that, too.

This morning, somebody challenged them and asked a Conservative member why they ran on that. That Conservative member stood up and said, “I did not believe in it.” That is funny, because that is the second or third Conservative I have heard say they were not running on a price on pollution or a carbon tax. However, they had no problem going along with the plan during the election. They did not say a single word in opposition to it at the time. Now, suddenly, they come in here and think that the buzz phrase of the day is going to be “axe the tax”, and this would bring them into power. That is not the position that somebody who is aspiring to be the leader of this country should be taking, asking what buzzwords happen to work today that would get him into power.

I also find it very interesting when we talk about inflation specifically. Today we have seen that Statistics Canada has reported that the inflation in Canada has dropped to 3.8%. I should add that all the economists who were predicting this in advance of today said it would be anywhere between 3.8% and 4.2%. It ended up being on the lower end of that. Conservatives are laughing.

Maybe it is time to compare that. I did it earlier, and I can compare it again. Let us compare it to the G7 countries. Again, Canada and the United States are tied for second place in terms of the lowest inflation. I think it is extremely important when we talk about our comparative countries.

Canada is heading in the right direction when it comes to inflation, but interestingly enough, when we look at inflation and the different sectors of the economy, transportation is one of the only sectors of the economy contributing to inflation, and it is the biggest contributor. It is interesting because the member for King—Vaughan was up earlier, and I asked her what proposals she would have to reduce the inflationary impact around transportation. Of course, the exact answer that I think everybody in this room would have expected, and I certainly did when I asked the question, was to get rid of the carbon tax, because the carbon tax is contributing to inflation.

The reality of the situation is that the carbon tax is not contributing to inflation. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, recently said that the overall impact of the carbon tax to inflation is 0.15%. I believe he was in Alberta at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. We could chalk that up to a rounding error. Now I know the default for my Conservative friends would be to jump up and say that they do not trust Tiff Macklem; they have already made their position on that very clear.

I have a whole list, and I will not bother reading it right now, of Conservative MPs who have stood up in this House and invoked the name of Tiff Macklem as the expert when he has all the right things that they want to say at the moment. They cannot pick and choose when they want to use somebody as an expert in the field.

It goes without saying for the rest of us in the House, other than Conservatives, that Tiff Macklem is an expert in this field. When he says that the carbon tax contributes 0.15%, I am sorry to the member for King—Vaughan, but getting rid of the carbon tax is not going to be helpful. It is not going to be the solution as it relates to inflation specifically.

Once again, we are confronted with a motion by Conservatives. All they are interested in is political games and cheap shots at the Prime Minister.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague always brings high-mindedness and elegance to his debate in this House of Commons. However, today in his speech, he talked about economic and financial numbers again. I know he is way out of his depth whenever it comes to those debate points.

He talked about our debt-to-GDP being 14%. Nobody says Canada's debt-to-GDP is 14%. As a matter of fact, he can google it himself. Canada's combined provincial federal debt is $2.1 trillion, and our GDP is about $2.3 trillion. It is almost the same. It is almost 100%, much like the other countries he brought up and referred to.

Would he take a lesson in this and say that, yes, it is much higher than 14% and, therefore, must be addressed? Can we do it with this bill?

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, it is not a bill. It is a motion from the opposition calling on the government to, within 10 days, create a plan. It knows full well this motion is not going to pass. This is part of the politics of it. This is what we see from Conservatives time after time.

Based on what I have been listening to in this House, it does not appear that any political party is going to vote in favour of this, other than the Conservatives. They do not come into this room with an interest in trying to find consensus or build policy. If the member genuinely believes that, then I suggest he might want to take a lesson in the politics that his leader plays daily, because this is not the game that they are playing.

All they want to do is have a gotcha moment that they can put the government into. That is what they are doing, unlike some of the other parties in this House that genuinely come in here, although we have differences, and try to bring forward ideas on policies that we can work on together.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members that if they have questions and comments, they should not think out loud. They should wait until it is time.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry that the member is feeling a little traumatized by the member for Kingston and the Islands’—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not really a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not support the Conservatives' nonsense plan.

The Liberals go on and on about how they help people, but I cannot see that in my riding. In fact, I have never seen anything look so bad, with a Conservative government that we just finally got rid of and a federal Liberal government.

We have a really bad housing crisis. We have record numbers of overdoses in our city, and people are finding it harder to make ends meet. Who are the Liberals helping? They are helping their corporate buddies in the grocery chains. While New Democrats are calling for a real plan, their plan is to meet with corporate leaders to see if they will do the right thing. Meanwhile, we have to cut coupons.

Does the hon. member agree that the Liberals need to do more?

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would say that I have a really good feeling about the way that this federal government will be able to work with the new government, although not of the same political stripe, in her province. I have great faith in that.

Perhaps the member has not heard it, but in this House, from this spot, I have been very outspoken about the greed that I see, particularly within the grocery sector. If she has ideas, because I know the NDP has been talking about this quite a bit, I am all ears in listening to them.

I will just say one thing about something she said at the beginning of her question that I thought was very interesting: the Conservatives' non-common sense plan. It reminds me of another Conservative politician from Ontario, Mike Harris. He came up with the same slogan of the “common sense revolution”, and we know how that worked out. We know what that did to water throughout the province of Ontario and what ended up happening.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again I would remind members that if they have thoughts, they should hold on to them until it is time for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to something that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was discussing, and that is the impact of the carbon tax on inflation and the numbers that have been found.

I noted, as to the member's comment, that the impact of carbon pricing has been up to two cents a litre, but the impact due to war profiteering from the oil and gas sector has been up to 18¢ a litre. Does he have any comments on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this is a set-up, because the member recently watched a video that I did on this exact topic, but it is true.

The carbon tax last year, year over year, contributed two cents per litre on average. The profit margins, or the wholesale profits of the oil and gas sector, was 18¢. Where is the outrage from Conservatives when it comes to those wholesale profits, when they are nine times what the carbon tax is?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to rise in this place and talk to opposition day motions. As I said before, and will say again, it provides an opportunity for the opposition parties to put forward some level of policy intent and ideals. For Canadians watching at home, opposition day motions are not binding on the government in any way whatsoever, but they allow us to debate the topics that opposition members want to raise.

Today, of course, the motion is broadly around fiscal prudence and the idea that the Government of Canada needs to continue to focus on maintaining fiscal balance. I could spend a lot of time going through the text of the motion, but folks at home will know that it is there. However, I want to talk a little bit about some of the concerns I have.

I will build upon what the member for Kingston and the Islands said, which is that I feel as though, with these opposition day motions, there is always a poison pill. There are always lines in there that, in my personal view, become disingenuous and are then used as a political tactic.

Canadians do not watch this place every single minute of the day; they are busy, and they are working. However, they get highlights, such as clips on social media, to see what we are up to.

For example, last week, the Conservative Party put forward an opposition day motion on carbon pricing. There are a number of reasons I voted against it, but, in part, it was because the carbon price motion in question had a lot of elements that I felt were not factually true. The motion talked about such things as removing all elements of carbon pricing and not just adjusting the federal backstop, which I am on record for saying. However, of course, the Conservative Party takes that, without context, and puts together a little montage of images and puts it out, in my mind, to gin up a lot of animosity and misinformation around what does and what does not happen in this place. I suspect today will be the same, as has been said by the member for Kingston and the Islands. I have not been part of the debate all day, but the member had said that the government, the NDP and probably the Bloc will vote against this, and the Conservatives will go out with some fake outrage on social media to drive concern about it.

I will start by saying that, of course, the concept of fiscal responsibility is an extremely important one. I was pleased to see this government actually announce on October 3 that the President of the Treasury Board was asking all ministers and all departments to look at ways that they can find cost efficiencies so that there can be an ability to reduce departmental spending without impacting the programs that really matter to Canadians. That is a responsible approach.

The Minister of Finance will have a fall economic statement forthcoming in this House, presumably in the next couple of weeks, or certainly before Christmas. It seems to me that the fall economic statement will highlight the finances of the country and how we are striking a very difficult balance between making sure that we have programs that matter for Canadians and at the same time making sure that we manage the debt burdens that the country and the government have.

Again, I have chastised some of my Conservative colleagues over the years for being very quick to point to certain elements that they would like to see changed, but they do not highlight a whole lot of the programs that they would cut. In the middle of the pandemic, we would hear one Conservative member stand up in this House and say that the government is not doing enough to support businesses that are being impacted by the pandemic. The next member would stand up, literally on the same question, and say that this government is spending too much money on programs in the middle of the pandemic. In fact, the leader of the official opposition is on record saying that the pandemic-related programs that mattered to small businesses and individuals at a time of great uncertainty were “big fat government” spending. He can tell that to the small businesses in my riding, to the restaurant owners and the people who were supported through a very difficult time, which helped give them a bridge to where we are today.

The Conservatives will offer this opposition day motion without any detail on what they would cut in terms of spending. Of course, they will cherry-pick certain elements for political gain, but the question is this: Would they walk back child care if they were to form government? I do not know, but I would love to hear from them on that, and I am sure Canadians would too. Would they walk back environmental progress? Well, we know that is indeed the case, and they have been very clear on that. What about such programs as the dental program, which we have worked as a Parliament to help introduce and which this government has put forward? That program is really going to matter for seniors in Kings—Hants. In fact, I know that my seniors are eagerly awaiting the announcement before Christmas about what those programs could look like.

That is not to say that I do not believe in making sure that the government is balanced in terms of its spending. In fact, in this House, any time I get the chance to do so, I am up on my feet talking about it. What is not recognized in the text of this opposition day motion is that Canada has one of the best debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. Our deficit size in relation to G7 countries is also one of the best. That is never mentioned from the opposition benches.

I know there are challenges right now on affordability. In the House, the member for York—Simcoe said we cannot eat a AAA credit rating. I guess he was saying people cannot eat AAA. We could eat a AAA steak, but we are trying to balance a credible pathway on finances versus delivering for Canadians.

There are a couple things I think are important. The text of the motion says that in order to try to avoid future interest rate increases, the government needs to introduce a balanced budget essentially by October 25. The government is going to introduce its fall economic statement, and it will talk about those things in the days ahead.

Let us make no mistake about the interest rate increases we are seeing. The Conservative Party would like to suggest they have to do with government spending, and yes, that may play a marginal part. However, there is a war in Ukraine. There is a war in Israel and the Palestinian territories. There are factors like climate change-related events and demographics.

A lot has happened around the world that is actually driving interest rates. I think, when having an intellectually informed policy debate about interest rates and how they correlate to bringing down consumer spending when there are broader events, there is a lot to be said.

International Day for the Eradication of Poverty

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

Madam Speaker, October 17 is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. This day is a moment to reflect on the amazing strides we have made as a world in reducing poverty, but also to recognize that there is still much to do.

Between 1990 and 2014, the world made remarkable progress, with Canada being a leader in helping more than a billion people to move out of extreme poverty. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine have caused the cost of food to skyrocket throughout the world, putting 150 million people on the verge of returning to extreme poverty.

Canada has long been a leader in the fight to eliminate global poverty and we are well positioned to continue that leadership. I would like to thank Results Canada, a non-profit agency with over 500 volunteers across the country, for its more than 35 years of work to end extreme poverty. Let us continue together to explore ways to eradicate poverty in Canada and around the world.

Mark Tennant

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Mark Tennant. For over a quarter century, Tennant was the face of the University of Saskatchewan women's volleyball program. He coached the Huskies to three straight national titles in 1979, 1980 and 1981. He was named national coach of the year four times in his career.

Mark Tennant's contribution to the sport of volleyball spanned over four decades as a player, coach, technical leader and international representative. He was inducted into numerous halls of fame. Tennant single-handedly changed the game, establishing Supervolley, one of Canada's largest and most prestigious open tournaments, which ran for over 20 years.

Our deepest sympathies go to his wife Gail; their three children Darcy, Derek and Breanne; and grandson Wick.

Canadian Foodgrains Bank

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, October 16 is World Food Day, established by the United Nations to drive change and raise awareness of worldwide hunger and poverty. One of the organizations doing just that is the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, a national partnership of 15 Canadian churches and church-based agencies acting for the future of food.

Today, Canadian Foodgrains Bank representatives from across the country are here in Ottawa for Hunger on the Hill, meeting with elected officials to discuss the global food crisis. They are engaging in courageous conversations about the connections between food systems and climate change, gender equality and food insecurity. As the world experiences a period of heightened conflict, sustainable solutions are now more important than ever.

Tonight, I am co-hosting this year's parliamentary reception with Canadian Foodgrains Bank and I invite all parliamentarians to join us in the fight against hunger.

Violence Around the World

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since Hamas's terrorist attacks on Israel, there have been acts of violence around the world that could end up turning the Middle East conflict into a global one.

In the space of just a few days, a teacher in France was killed by a radicalized former student, two Swedish tourists in Belgium were murdered in the name of the Islamic State and a six-year-old boy in the U.S. was killed and his mother seriously injured by their landlord because they were Muslim.

This murderous madness must end. Nobody can take justice into their own hands no matter how angry they are. Peace cannot be achieved that way, only a chain reaction leading to more violence and more tragedy.

The Bloc Québécois laments these innocent victims, stands strong with their loved ones and vigorously condemns all who give themselves over to hatred that serves no cause but chaos.

Cannabis

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, exactly five years ago today, Parliament passed the Cannabis Act, legalizing access to recreational cannabis in Canada. It created a $43.5-billion boost to our GDP, 98,000 jobs and over $1.2 billion a year in tax revenue to the provincial and federal governments.

It also created a regulated cannabis market that protects public health and has not increased youth consumption of cannabis or realized any of the other fears that were raised in the debate in this place. Rather, legalization has meant that people no longer get criminal records for simply possessing cannabis, which unjustly constrained the ability of Canadians to secure housing, employment and travel for many decades.

Canada became a world leader by legalizing cannabis in 2018, but our experience since shows that we must continue to work on the legal framework to maintain our advantage. We need to reform the regulatory structure that is causing significant challenges to the industry and those who would consider joining it. We need to improve enforcement to displace the ever-existing illegal market and facilitate the expungement of records for those who have been criminalized in the past. As this legislation is reviewed, I look forward to working with all members in this place to bring these and other changes into effect.

Lawrence Robidoux

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Canadian, Corporal Lawrence Robidoux, a veteran who paid the ultimate price during the Korean War.

Corporal Robidoux was born in Radville, Saskatchewan in 1928, to parents Joseph and Eva. He moved to Rhode Island following World War II.

Lawrence joined Company B, 1st Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment, U.S. Army, at age 19. In June 1950, his battalion was the first to be sent into Korea, and in November of that year, Corporal Robidoux and 77 others were officially listed as missing in action.

For 60 years, his family tried to locate his remains and, in January 2023, through DNA testing, the army announced that he had been found. Sadly, he died as a prisoner of war in North Korea, in May 1951. This past Friday, Corporal Robidoux's remains were laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery with full military honours, giving some much deserved peace and closure to his family.

His country needed him; he answered the call. We shall not forget.

Famous Five

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on October 18, we celebrate the courage of the Famous Five, trail-blazing women who, in 1929, succeeded in the challenge to the Supreme Court, when they referred the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, thus leading to the historic decision that, yes, women were indeed persons and could become senators. The new definition was then adopted by many countries, that the word “persons” always means women and men.

Last week, I was proud to attend and speak at the unveiling of the Famous Five maquette at Mount Saint Vincent University, a fitting host, given that the Mount is celebrating its sesquicentennial, 150 years of opening doors to women and girls.

I thank the leadership at the Mount, Famous 5 Foundation CEO Frances Wright, maquette sculptor Barbara Paterson and all women leaders who contributed to such a meaningful event.

Foreign Affairs

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the violence in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel has left many Canadians in deep pain and in a state of trauma. Our neighbours in Milton have shared how the violence and bloodshed have caused them immeasurable pain, fear and heartbreak.

Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism and anti-Semitism are on the rise in Canada and that is a direct result of the violence in the Middle East. This is completely unacceptable. I unequivocally condemn the brutal terrorist attacks by Hamas on innocent Israelis and I want to reiterate the words of the Prime Minister. Hamas are not freedom fighters or a resistance. They are terrorists and they do not represent the very legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Nothing justifies violence against innocent civilians. This senseless violence must end immediately. I call for the release of all hostages and strict adherence to all international law. I urge the establishment of a safe humanitarian corridor for essential aid for Gazans.

Everyone I have talked to is desperate for genuine allyship and support. We must be there for one another.

As Canadians, we are an example to the world of how neighbours of different backgrounds can live in harmony, how diversity is a strength and that peaceful coexistence is always something worth striving for.