Debates of June 21st, 2023

Opposition Motion—Balanced Budget

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I am lucky to be here this evening. Our colleague is pretty funny, but he talked about several very serious topics. He also talked about a very specific issue, housing. What is the Bloc Québécois's solution for addressing the homelessness problem? I am just curious.

It would be interesting to hear the perspective of my colleague on that specific issue, seeing as it is the last day of Parliament. I have never actually asked the member the question.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend the work of my colleague.

People often say it is a question of supply and demand. Often, the people who talk about supply and demand do not understand the concept. I am not throwing stones at anyone, but that is what it comes down to.

What is happening now is that, with the higher salaries and the growing population, the demand for housing has increased significantly. If we allow the price of homes to go up, at some point there will not be housing for everyone because the population is growing. What is more, there are people who now have the means to go live in an apartment who may not have had the means before. We need to work on supply.

If we do not work on supply, we are doomed to have shortages because we will not have enough housing to offer to people as demand keeps growing. Demographics are important and they are not being taken into consideration right now. Let us work on supply. That is the best way to ensure that people can have housing, but also that they can afford it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for La Prairie for his speech and enthusiasm. I want to ask him this. The Conservatives say that today's motion is their plan for fighting inflation. However, in the past, the Conservative leader presented a plan to fight inflation based in part on the use of cryptocurrency. I do not see any reference to cryptocurrency in this motion. I am wondering why the Conservatives removed this very important pillar from their plan. Could the member for La Prairie comment on that?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do not support cryptocurrency, which creates inflation.

I would like to highlight an important point that I did not previously mention. Introducing a plan to return to balanced budgets will have an impact on the economy and inflation by changing expectations about inflation. Inflation feeds itself. Forecasting inflation is enough to create it and to throw us in an inflationary spiral. Proposing a plan to balance the budget will lower expectations of inflation occurring. This curbs salary increases, which in turn limits inflation.

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

Madam Speaker, I am indeed pleased to rise tonight to speak to the motion that is before us and to say, on behalf of New Democrats, that we do not intend to support this motion, the reason being that New Democrats simply do not believe that one can have a credible plan to fight inflation without addressing the role that outsized price increases by corporations play in contributing to inflation. Not only is there not a plan, but there is not even a mention of the ways in which outsized price increases by corporations are hurting Canadians in the pocketbook. We have heard from economists who have said that as much as 25% of the inflation that Canadians have experienced over the last two years is attributable to those very same corporate price increases.

We have seen it in the oil and gas sector, where there have been record profits and, in fact, an increase in extraction. We heard at the finance committee, not that long ago, that, in Canada, we are taking out record numbers of barrels of oil and gas every day in this country. Why is it that this can be happening alongside real economic strife in places like Alberta, where that oil and gas work is happening? It is because we have also seen a significant decrease in the level of employment, due to automation and other advances in technology within the oil fields. We are seeing a decoupling of profitability in the oil and gas sector and employment in the oil and gas sector, which is what really matters for Canadians when it comes to ensuring that the wealth generated through the extraction of our natural resources actually goes to Canadian working-class families.

While that can look good in terms of productivity numbers for the industry, depending on how it runs the numbers and depending on its purpose, whether it is reporting to shareholders or whether it is reporting to this place while seeking more subsidies, it is nevertheless the case that, even as the industry continues to extract more, Canadians are benefiting less. That is true from the workers' point of the view and the industry's point of view, but it is also true from the point of view of Canadian consumers because, as those same oil and gas companies that are employing fewer people, even as they take more oil and gas out of the ground, are doing that, they are also raising prices well above the increase in the cost of their inputs. In fact, some of their input costs are going down as they employ fewer Canadians in decent, unionized positions with good-paying wages.

That explains how they can be logging record profits, and by record profits, I mean more profit in a single year than the oil and gas industry has ever seen in the history of the country. One would not know that to listen to Conservatives in this place, who say that the oil and gas industry is not doing well. It is very hard to believe that an industry is not doing well when it is producing a record amount of product and it is achieving the highest amount of profit it has ever seen in the history of the country, while charging Canadians higher prices than it ever has before. As much as we hear about the carbon tax, and there is no question that the carbon tax does increase the purchase price of oil and gas, just the simple price increases, the input cost increases that those companies have been experiencing, are more than what the carbon tax is. Do we hear a word from Conservatives about unjustified price hikes by the oil and gas companies, and what that means for Canadians and their pocketbook? No, we do not. That is why this is a party that simply does not have a credible plan to fight inflation.

I think there are two different approaches one can take to trying to fight inflation, and I think they mark a significant philosophical difference between the Conservative Party and, ultimately, I would argue, the Liberal government, as well as New Democrats. On the one hand, one can try to increase people's disposable income. We see that through proposals to eliminate the carbon tax and reduce taxes generally. What I find passing strange is that, with respect to providing income support to the poorest Canadians, we know, when they see an increase in their income, that extra money is going to go only to continuing to pay their rent in the same place where they have already been paying rent, or to buy the same groceries they had been buying before but are no longer able to. That is not inflationary money in the economy. That is not driving inflation. Supporting people to be able to still put a meal on the table and pay their rent is not inflationary spending.

That is why I am very proud that New Democrats, two times now, have pushed the government to double the GST rebate. We know it is going to households that really need a lot of help in a really difficult time, when they are struggling to afford their rent and they are struggling to afford their food, but it will help in a way that does not cause further inflation, despite what the leader of the Conservatives says. The odd thing is that, when he advocates broad-based tax cuts, like eliminating the carbon tax, he has nothing to say about the inflationary impact of returning that money to households, not just the poorest households, which can be done through mechanisms like a higher GST rebate, but also higher-income households.

If the leader of the Conservatives wants to talk about how more money in the economy is going to lead to higher inflation, it is a strange admission. That is not even to mention that the real driver of certain kinds of inflation, when we talk about spending, or what would be if corporations actually spent it in the Canadian economy, which too often they do not, is the corporate taxes that the Conservatives and Liberals have often advocated. That is why there is actually a great meeting of the minds between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to tax policy. It is why they have worked together, from the year 2000 to now, to lower the corporate tax rate from 28% to 15%. What does that mean? It means more spending in the economy, which, if we listen to the leader of the Conservatives, automatically means more inflation.

The Conservatives do not talk about how lowering corporate taxes can contribute to inflation. To the extent that it does not, it is because that money leaves the country and actually does not get spent. That is the point that Jim Flaherty, the former Conservative finance minister under Stephen Harper, made before he passed: they had lowered the corporate tax rate, and that was meant to increase business investment and raise productivity. However, as many Conservative members are fond of pointing out, Canada's productivity numbers are not what they should be, and it is not because corporate Canada has not had vast amounts of capital in waiting to make those business investments in order to raise productivity. It is because the companies prefer to either pay it out to their shareholders here in Canada or scuttle that money away into tax havens through agreements that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have made in order to make it easier for that profit to shift out of the country without those corporations ever paying their dues and helping to fund a number of things that are really important in helping Canadians get by in this difficult time.

Broad-based tax relief is one way to say we are fighting inflation. I think some of the hazards the leader of the Conservative Party likes to point out about other things, like income support, apply equally to broad-based tax relief at a time like this. We should be conscious of that when we are evaluating proposals for tax decreases. It does not mean that New Democrats oppose all tax decreases. In fact, we were very vocal about the excise tax and our feeling that it was inappropriate for the excise tax to have an automatic escalator, first of all, and that the exceptional increase in the excise tax this year, because of inflation, was not acceptable. We worked with opposition parties to oppose that, and, ultimately, although the government did not bring it down to zero, it dramatically reduced the excise tax increase with the budget implementation act.

The other way to combat inflation, which, for my money, is more effective, is to try to control the price of things Canadians cannot do without. What do I mean by that? I mean bringing down the cost of child care, because that puts money back in Canadians' pockets. It makes it easier for Canadians who want to work in order to support their family to be able to leave the home and do that work. We all know that this disproportionately affects women who want to have a career. They can do that because they can now access child care at a price that makes it so they do not work simply to pay for child care instead of contributing to the other meaningful expenses of a household.

With respect to a pharmacare program, we need to mobilize the power of bulk purchasing across the country and bring down the price of prescription drugs considerably. There have been so many studies done on pharmacare, going back decades. All of them conclude that, by having one federal program, we could significantly reduce the amount Canadians pay for prescription drugs. There is no question about it. It is why pharmaceutical companies hate the idea. It is why they have spent so much money lobbying the government to stop it. Unfortunately, they have done that far too successfully, and it is why New Democrats are here to continue pushing and to provide the political will to drown out the lobbying efforts of the pharmaceutical industry, because we know that, through good public policy, we can reduce the amount Canadians pay for drugs. That ensures not only that they get extra income, but also that corporations cannot just take that income by raising their prices, which is what has been happening in the oil and gas industry.

It is what has been happening in the grocery industry. If people want proof of that, they need look no further than today's news, where Canada Bread Company has admitted to price fixing with Weston Foods. The company paid a $50-million fine after having pleaded guilty. What about the other companies that were involved in that, and what about Canadians who have been looking at food prices over the last two years? People know very well that many companies have been raising their prices over and above the additional cost to the companies, whether it is for oil and gas to heat their home or it is for their groceries. I think we all have a legitimate suspicion that Canadians have not been treated fairly by corporate Canada.

With respect to creating more disposable income, Conservatives love to say that if the government taxes corporations, they are just going to pass that on to the consumer. If it cuts Canadians' taxes, corporations are just going to raise their prices. Does that mean we are stuck and that there is no hope and no way forward? No, it does not, because through good public policy we can reduce the cost of child care in a way that means people cannot just up the price, because we are regulating the fees and we are providing subsidy to make sure the organizations offering child care are not doing it at an exorbitant price. It is why New Democrats have a very clear and stated preference for non-profit delivery in child care, because we think that once we incorporate that profit motive, we are exposing Canadians to the very same greedy taking that we have seen in the oil and gas sector, in the grocery sector and elsewhere. That is the way. If we can control the cost of something that people cannot do without, that puts more money back in people's pockets in such a way that it cannot just be taken back out again.

It is why I supported the Manitoba Public Utilities Board, for instance, which has been very successful, over decades, in regulating the price of auto insurance and Manitoba Hydro. Interestingly, it is a body that the current Conservative Government of Manitoba has been trying to wreck, and to impede from doing its job of looking closely at requested price hikes by these crown corporations. It is ironic, given that one would think it would be the Conservatives most of all who would want a hawkish oversight agency to be looking at crown corporations and ensuring fair pricing. However, in fact, they are undermining the Public Utilities Board. I think it is important. We could actually use something like that nationally for the price of oil and gas, to ensure that when Canadians are going to the pumps or when they are heating their home, they can be assured that they are getting a fair shake on the price, and that the fact that it is the long weekend would not dictate whether they have a hole in their budget at the end of the month.

It is why dental support is important. With dental insurance, we can ensure that people are getting a service which they otherwise would not get at all. We know that, too often, because of people's socio-economic status, they have not been able to access dental care. For those who have been able to pay, this means they are going to be able to get more service without simply seeing corresponding hikes in prices.

New Democrats have a very settled opinion on what the way to fight inflation is: through good public policy and public investment so Canadians are working together and co-operating to provide the essentials of life and create more room for disposable income in their household budgets, instead of simply cutting taxes for everyone. Cutting taxes for everyone disproportionately benefits the most wealthy and then makes it harder to provide services for everyone, and it runs all the same risks of inflationary pressure on the economy that the leader of the Conservative Party is so concerned about when it involves public funds.

Here is another way in which that matters, and another way in which there is a very close resemblance between, for instance, the housing policy of the Liberal government and the housing policy of the Conservative Party. Neither one is willing to call out the role of corporate greed in housing. The leader of the Conservatives sometimes, maybe, kind of makes a passing allusion to it but is quick to say that somehow it is the fault of government. The housing market is working exactly how it was set up to work in the mid-1990s, with the blessing of Liberals and Conservatives. They decided they wanted to make it more of a financial market. They wanted a commodity-based approach to housing. That has been working. The national housing strategy, frankly, has been largely a joke in terms of increasing supply for affordable housing, and it has done nothing to impede the kind of harmful investment behaviour we see in the market.

The Conservatives are not proposing to do anything about that. The idea that, by simply balancing the government's books, we are going to see a significant change in the housing market or houses becoming more affordable is a joke. That is not how this is going to go. There are very deep pockets that do not rely on anything the government does in order to be able to spend in the real estate economy, acquire houses and acquire apartment blocks.

Where is the leader of the Conservatives when we talk about the travesty of buildings like Lions Manor on Portage Avenue in Winnipeg, which used to provide affordable housing? It has just been acquired, not with government money, but by a giant corporate landlord that came in, bought the building and is evicting the tenants. One does not have a serious strategy to fix the problem of housing in Canada if one cannot criticize the corporate sector and the role that it is playing in jacking up the price of housing. It cannot be done. It is not serious.

Then we look at things that the previous Conservative government did to put money in the pockets of corporate Canada, never mind the corporate tax decreases, which were substantial. The Conservatives sold the plans for the CANDU reactor, which was world-leading technology. They love to talk about nuclear, but do members know that they sold that to SNC-Lavalin for pennies on the dollar? It was $75 million, but it came with a bunch of tax benefits and other things. I think they sold it for a final net cost of about $15 million. I do not know what it costs to build a CANDU reactor, but I know that it is measured in billions and not millions to get the intellectual property behind that. Before the Harper government, it actually belonged to Canadians, so that when somebody decided to build a nuclear reactor on the CANDU model anywhere in the world, Canadians could benefit. I think that is a real travesty. It is just an example of how the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals when it comes to stuffing the pockets of corporate Canada at the expense of Canadians.

I am mindful of a leader who does actually have so many policy similarities to the Liberal government. I could go on about that. I recall that, in the fall of 2021, when the leader of the Conservative Party was their finance critic, we were having a debate about the mandate of the Bank of Canada. Its mandate is to fight inflation, and it has been for a long time; it is to keep inflation at a 2% target.

We talked about what the impact of maintaining that mandate would have on Canadians if we saw higher interest rates. We said that if that was the only thing the Bank of Canada was going to do, it would jeopardize strong employment by raising interest rates to get inflation under control. It would put Canadians in jeopardy of losing their homes by raising interest rates in order to combat inflation, instead of having a more nuanced mandate, as many central banks around the world do. They keep an eye on strong employment and the effect of rising interest rates on the ability of folks to stay in their homes and to keep making payments on their mortgages.

The current leader of the Conservative Party was very clear at that time. He wanted the mandate to stay narrowly on the 2% inflation target; that was it. What did the Liberals do? They acquiesced. I was on a panel with them, shot out in the foyer, at the time. I remember, because when I said that actually the Liberals had done everything he said he wanted them to do, he mused about legal action against me for having shown the very direct link between the Liberal Party's actions and the Conservative Party's advice. I said that it would be a bad day for Canadians if we did experience inflation, because the Bank of Canada would raise interest rates and put them out of their homes.

Let us not pretend that the leader of the Conservative Party has not played a very important role in keeping the Bank of Canada on a mandate that is causing these increased interest rate hikes. It is not the only thing, but the fact that it does not have a more nuanced mandate is a product of his advice and the actions of the Liberal Party. Canadians are not benefiting from the kind of nuance that has been built into other central banks' mandates.

That is why I stand here today to say that there are more ways to fight inflation than what the Conservatives have put in here. In fact, what they have put in here goes squarely against New Democrats' approach to fighting inflation. New Democrats' approach has everything to do with putting money back in the pockets of Canadians but doing it by ensuring that all the things that they have to buy, such as child care, prescription drugs, dental care, housing, are actually brought down, instead of what we see in the motion today. That is just to cut those programs in order to balance the government's books.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the member speak. I know he has a good command of these issues, and he is respected for his work on the finance committee in particular.

I do agree very strongly with his take on how to combat inflation, when he says that the approach should be to focus on those things that people cannot do without, such as dental care and child care. I am glad to see that the government, with the support of the NDP, has moved in that direction. We see the benefit to thousands of Canadians who are being supported along the way in both of those areas.

I do want more clarity on something. I do not ask this in a combative way; I am simply interested in the NDP's position. The member raised the issue of corporate income tax. He seemed to suggest that the NDP position would be to raise those rates back up to close to 30%. What is the position of the NDP on that specific matter? I hear some, not many, New Democrats who have a very pro-business view; sometimes they present themselves in that way, and one would expect a championing of a lower rate of tax. However, I did not hear that from this member.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member will not hear that, when it comes to the corporate tax rate.

We ran on increasing the corporate tax rate, not to 30% but to 19%; I think that was the latest platform commitment. We have been very clear about that. This is still well below the OECD average, so it is hardly a high-water mark when it comes to fair taxation of large corporations.

Our position is that Canada has incredible competitive advantage beyond a low tax rate. Canada does not have to scrape the bottom of the barrel on its corporate tax rate in order to attract investment. We have a lot of natural resources that cannot be found elsewhere. We have an incredible labour market with a lot of skill. We provide benefits, such as health care, that oftentimes, in other jurisdictions, employers would have to pay premiums in order to be able to provide.

Canada is an attractive place to invest, and we do not have to have a bottom-of-the-barrel corporate tax rate in order to attract investment.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, on average, 9% of OECD countries' revenue comes from corporate taxation. I have this from the OECD report. In Canada, it is 12%. Tax revenue that comes from corporate taxation is 30% more in Canada. Therefore, to say that we are somehow below the average in the amount of taxation we take from corporations is simply not true.

I heard the member criticizing both Liberals and Conservatives. He went on about some of the things that the Liberals are doing wrong. We agree that the Liberals have a deficit and debt that is way too high. We have interest rates and inflation. We might disagree on the cause of that, but we are seeing negative consequences. We have food bank usage doubling.

Will the member vote non-confidence in the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not do that today, but we have been very clear that the day may come.

We heard a Liberal member talking before about inflation and the hardship that Canadians are experiencing because of that. Any time they talk about this, they start listing the things that the NDP made them do, including the GST rebate, dental care, action on child care and pharmacare. The discriminating factor is that as long as we can continue to push the Liberal government into doing things to benefit Canadians in this difficult time, things that I firmly believe they would not be doing with a majority, we will continue to support the ongoing work of this Parliament as opposed to another one.

The day will come when this Parliament ends. What we are doing now is setting up Canadians to get some meaningful relief from inflation in a way that companies cannot simply take back without price increases. I think we are paving the way for a strong majority New Democratic government in Canada.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I joined the debate 15 or 20 minutes ago. I heard part of my colleague's speech. I would like to take him back to what we call the “fiscal imbalance” and what I could also call “federal paternalism”. This refers to the fact that the federal government uses the money it has and its own spending to impose its own choices on Quebec.

What does my colleague think about federal paternalism? I imagine that he must support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is always a danger of seeing something like that when we work in teams. I also think that it is possible to have a genuine partnership between the provinces and the federal government.

It is a matter of how the programs are implemented and how involved the provinces are in the decisions surrounding how the program will be implemented in their jurisdictions.

When it comes to child care, for example, there is a good model. The provinces have had a lot of say in how it will be implemented in their own jurisdiction, including Quebec, which has always been a leader in child care. There are models for good collaboration. We want to look at these models to ensure that we do not become the victims of dangerous federal government paternalism.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has been brought to mind by this motion is the focus on this idea of returning to balanced budgets. In times past, during both Conservative and Liberal majority governments, they tried to make themselves look better by balancing the budget. To do this, not only did they cut services, but they also cut housing strategies and a lot of things Canadians depend upon. They also raided the employment insurance fund, which was paid for by the deferred wages of workers. What is the member's perspective on that? I would really love to hear.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, that is a fact, and it has been done by Liberal and Conservative governments. In fact, it was a key election commitment of the sitting Prime Minister that he would not do this anymore.

I think the running tally between Liberal and Conservative governments by 2015 of what had been raided out of the employment insurance account was about $63 billion or so. This was money that did not belong to government but belonged to workers in order to pay wages while they are out of work. Perhaps somebody knows that number better.

What I find quite disconcerting is that the current government is at it with the same old tricks, except that this time, instead of just gratuitously grabbing that money out of the EI account, it has said that it is going to take $25 billion of pandemic CERB debt and apply it to the EI account. Therefore, it is saying that it is not really taking money out of the account but just debiting the account.

One does not have to be a democratic socialist to be upset about this. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business thinks it is a bad idea, and it is upset about it too. Both employers and employees are rightly upset about the fact that the federal government has once again decided to go grab out of the EI piggy bank, which is not what it is. It is also why we should have legislation to protect that account, but we do not, and it is why we have been very consistent in calling on the government to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I worked with the member on the Standing Committee on Finance quite well. I would simply like to ask about his views on building more housing. He seems to be completely against real estate investment trusts or other private entities, but ultimately, if we are going to see more purpose-built rentals to give people a roof over their heads, it is going to take an incredible amount of money. Some of these larger corporations are able to do that. They are doing it in places like Westbank First Nation. Quite honestly, municipal gatekeepers are preventing private, public or not-for-profit entities from building more affordable housing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will give the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona a few seconds to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an important opportunity to correct the record. We are not against private developers creating new housing, but that is not what is going to fix the housing crisis. They have been doing that for decades, and it is not helping. We have been on a track to destruction for a long time.

What we think is a real problem is when a big corporate landlord buys a building that used to provide affordable rents, renovates the premises, kicks out all the tenants who needed those affordable rents, jacks up the rents and then invites in other people with more ability to pay. They are not creating new units. This leaves the other people destitute and without a place to live. We will not solve the housing crisis by kicking the poor out of existing affordable units and then allowing those big corporate landlords to make mad profit off new tenants. We need a different plan now.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague who spoke before me, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. I do not share his political opinions and values, but I must point out the effort he made to speak French. I am very pleased to hear more French in the House of Commons. I tip my hat to him.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Just over three months ago, on March 28, the Liberal government tabled an irresponsible budget that increases debt and inflation. A few weeks ago, I rose in the House to give a speech on Bill C‑47, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. I began my speech on this bill on June 6 by criticizing the government, which, in my opinion, is choosing to throw money at everyone and waste money. It is making decisions in its own self-interest to hold on to power, using taxpayer dollars to buy a little bit of support from the NDP. The NDP will probably never have as much power in the future as it has in this Parliament—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member's telephone is vibrating and causing a disturbance.

The hon. member has the floor.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that the current government is a minority government and that, in my opinion, the NDP will probably never again have the power it has right now in this 44th Parliament. It is rather odd and a bit disappointing to us, Canadians, who work hard to save our money and make the best use of it.

This government is reaffirming its commitment to reducing the federal debt and thinks that it will do that by wasting our money. I am asking this question again because here we are near the end of the session before the House adjourns for the summer. That is likely not news. I think that Canadians noticed that it was possibly our last day. I want to take this opportunity to wish a very good summer to the 337 other parliamentarians who worked hard for many hours. I think Canadians should know how many hours we all spend on serving them. I wish my colleagues a very good summer. I hope they take care of themselves and their family and that they come back in September in full form.

I was saying that it is unfortunate to see that nothing has changed on the Liberal side. Canadians are still stretched to the limit with inflation. They are drowning. What is really unfortunate is that it is getting worse because of this government's policy. Six months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister was saying that we should not run deficits or that we should minimize them because they would have a direct impact on inflation. That was six months ago when she tabled the November economic statement. Then she tabled the budget in March.

When I look at this massive budget, unfortunately I do not see an approach or a target date for balancing the budget. That is rather unfortunate. We are caught in a downward spiral. The problem is that the cost of living is going up. Companies need more revenue. Employees need more income. The government is increasing taxes, which means that there is no way out, no escape.

The housing situation is a tragedy. I have before me an article that was updated in today's Journal de Montréal. In Quebec, rent prices have risen by 13.7% in just one year. I am not talking about food or heating or consumer goods. I am talking about something that every Canadian cannot do without, namely housing. Worse still, the increase in some cities is as high as 44%. That is huge.

There was another article posted online whose headline read, “I'm prepared to sleep in the living room: this mom of two teens has 10 days left to find a place to live”. It is tragic. It is no joke. We need to give ourselves the means to be rigorous and to get our public finances in order. The members across the aisle are telling us that everything is fine, that the outlook is good, that they have received a good report card from the international community. Unfortunately, it all depends on how one looks at report cards. I could go on and on about housing statistics, but I will go back to my original text.

Businesses are no longer able to make good deals. Everything costs more. There is a labour shortage. We need to increase wages. At the end of the day, there is only one payer and that is the Canadian taxpayer. It is important to be able to strike the right balance. There is no sign of that from this government, however. As my economist colleague from the Bloc Québécois said, this government has no vision. It is reactive. Foreign interference is one example of the government being reactive.

That went on for quite a while. Because of the situation, the special rapporteur resigned. We do not know whether he resigned willingly or was forced to. We told the government that an independent public inquiry was needed. They played with words about the process, and they might wait until the last minute, when they have no other choice, before they reach that conclusion. We are wasting time. As my grandfather said, time is money.

I was talking about businesses. It is very important to give them the tools they need, which brings me to another topic, the carbon tax. The government has been in power for eight years. It brought in a first tax and took certain measures. Looking at the results after eight years, we see that there have been no reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. I am told that there was a drop at one point, but that was during the pandemic. The pandemic certainly did reduce consumption, but it reduced a lot of other things too. When we look at the projections, we can see that we are going to hit a wall.

The first carbon tax did not work. Now we will wave a magic wand. We will solve the greenhouse gas problem by introducing a second carbon tax.

If the first tax did not work, then the second likely will not either. No one needs to take a university class to understand that. Instead of taking care of the environment, this government is taking money out of taxpayers' pockets and making them even poorer. However, I would like to remind the government that Canadians cannot take any more. They have been bled dry. They are no longer able to pay their bills.

The fact that 1.5 million Canadians have to use food banks is very serious, yet the government is saying that we do not have to worry, that everything is fine and the situation is under control.

I have some data from the OECD. We are being told that Canada is doing well when it comes to the real GDP growth projections for 2023-24 and that we are among the leaders. I do not know about that. I did a search earlier while I was waiting for my turn to speak. In terms of the real GDP growth projection for 2023-24, the average for all countries is 2.7%. The projection for Canada is 1.4%, but the government is saying that things are going well and that everything is under control. We are on the right path, the results are good and we need to trust the government.

For 2024, the real GDP growth projection for all countries is 2.9%. That is an average. The projection for Canada is not 7% or 5.1%. It is 1.4%.

On that note, I want to wish everyone a good summer. I will be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As always, his speech was energetic and to the point. I appreciate his speeches.

However, I would like to mention the one thing I find problematic. He said that we are wasting money. The difference between the Conservative Party and our party is that we are investing in Canadians. We are investing a lot of money to help them. Since 2015, we have created 1.2 million jobs. Since COVID‑19, we have created 900,000 jobs. That is huge.

What did the Conservatives do? I would like to know where they are going to make cuts. Before the hon. member was elected, the Conservatives closed nine veterans offices and cut 1,000 positions at Veterans Affairs Canada. Are there any other places where the member plans to make cuts?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saluting my colleague, whom I sincerely appreciate. We have the privilege of working together on issues related to the international Francophonie. I had the opportunity to work with him on Bill C‑13.

It is a good thing that he was the Liberal representative for the study on Bill C‑13, because without him, we would have had even less to show for all our efforts. I would like to acknowledge him and thank him for the work that he did, although he could have done more.

Now, as for the situation in 2015, all I can say to my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook is that we had a time horizon to balance the budget. We left the books in great shape, whereas this government has run up a deficit larger than the deficits of all prime ministers combined since Trudeau senior.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, in 2022, environmental disasters caused by climate change cost $275 billion. The five biggest oil companies made $220 billion in profits in 2022. Oil companies received $20 billion in funding from the government. I rounded these figures.

As my colleague claims, we know that the government spends unwisely. Does he believe that the $20 billion the government spent on an industry that made $220 billion in profits that year was a bad investment? He seems to be concerned about climate change and the environment, so does he not think that this money could have been better spent on the energy transition?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to salute my colleague from Montcalm. That is definitely a concern for me. As the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, I am concerned about two things, namely official languages and the environment.

His question contains the answer because, when it comes to the energy transition, we need to take a gradual approach and have a vision. We must not be reactionary. That is what the Liberal government is doing, by always acting at the last minute and improvising.

Yes, we must commit to the energy transition, but we need to do it intelligently. We do not need to get too drastic, we simply need to improve the situation. We need to set a target and create a plan to meet that target. The Liberal carbon tax plan fails to meet any targets. All it does is fill the government's coffers and leave Canadians poorer.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. I hope he has a great summer ahead of him.

This motion is misguided. Cutting help to people is not the solution. In fact, we have seen corporate taxes go from 28% to 15% under the Liberals and the Conservatives. What has happened? Real estate trusts, banks, and oil and gas companies are raking in record profits. We also keep seeing increases in bank fees and oil and gas prices.

When are the Conservatives actually going to have the courage to stand up against corporate welfare and make sure corporations pay their far share so that people get the help they need?