Debates of June 21st, 2023

Opposition Motion—Balanced Budget

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise in this place today to speak to the opposition motion put forward by the Conservatives to address the cost of living crisis facing Canadians. This is a crisis that the government has done nothing to fix. In fact, it is the Liberals' inflationary policies that created the crisis in the first place.

What has their response been? They have continued to run high deficits, pushing inflation to 40-year record highs. The Prime Minister excused this reckless spending by claiming that interest rates were at record lows and would remain there for many years to come. Now we have record debt, record inflation, and interest rates that have continued to rise despite the Prime Minister's prediction. This is causing pain for Canadians across the country, as their household budgets are being stretched thinner and thinner under the Liberal tax-and-spend plan. While Canadians are struggling, the government continues to increase taxes, making the essentials more expensive.

The Liberals have been persistent in their misinformed statements that the carbon tax is a net positive for Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports on the two carbon taxes have rejected this notion. The first carbon tax the government introduced will end up costing Canadians up to 41¢ per litre of gas. The added second carbon tax will cost another 17¢ per litre. Adding GST, this comes to 61¢ per litre. This will cost Saskatchewan families an extra $2,840 each year, but some Canadian families will pay up to $4,000 for the combined Liberal carbon taxes in other parts of the country.

This is a slap in the face to Saskatchewanians and Canadians. The carbon taxes have only made life more expensive for Canadians and have cost them more money for no results. The carbon taxes were never an environmental plan; they were a tax plan to fuel government spending.

Even while Canadians are struggling, the government cannot show fiscal restraint. It has no respect for taxpayers, as it continues to ramp up its inflationary spending. When the Prime Minister formed government, the national debt was $612.3 billion. By the end of this fiscal year, the federal debt is projected to reach $1.22 trillion. This means the Prime Minister has doubled the national debt in just eight years.

The national debt will break down to $81,000 per household in Canada. Additionally, debt-servicing costs have been growing just as fast as the government's deficits. This fiscal year, it is projected that the cost to service the national debt will be $43.9 billion. This cost is quickly approaching the amount of money given to the provinces through health transfers.

Canadians are deeply concerned about the economic policies of our country, except, it would seem, those sitting on the government benches. Most Canadians do not have a trust fund to fall back on, so they need to be careful with their money. The government needs to start demonstrating respect for hard-working Canadians by being good stewards of the public purse.

Without a plan to eliminate the deficits and balance the budget, inflation and interest rates will continue to rise and hurt Canadian families across the country even more. The Liberals have not put forward a plan to do this. Instead, they poured more gasoline on their inflationary fire by adding more than $60 billion in new spending. That is $4,200 per Canadian family. This spending is driving up deficits and consequently increasing inflation.

The Bank of Canada, which was widely predicted to lower interest rates, instead raised them from 4.5% to 4.75% following the tabling of the Liberals' budget. That is why the Conservatives are now calling on the government, through this opposition motion, to return to balanced budgets and give Canadians a break.

Now we are receiving warnings from the International Monetary Fund that Canada is the country most at risk of massive mortgage defaults. Across Canada, average mortgage payments have increased by 122% since the Prime Minister took office. Despite this warning, we see no plan from the government to get inflation under control to avoid a potential mortgage default crisis. Instead, the Liberals are burying their heads in the sand, leaving Canadians to their own devices as they spend away their future. This is not sustainable and is pushing Canadians closer to the edge.

Canadian households now have the most debt as a share of GDP of any country in the G7. This is not a record we want to hold. There is a solution. The Liberals must eliminate the deficits and balance the budget in order to bring down inflation and interest rates. I know this may not be easy for them, as they seem to know only one economic policy, which is to raise taxes and print money, but the fact is that if the Liberals were to put together a plan to return to balanced budgets and eliminate deficits, lower inflation and interest rates would follow. However, this is not something they can wait to do. We are already at a crisis point.

Just last month, the food bank in Saskatoon held a food drive, as the usage of food banks has reached a new record of 24,000 people a month. Across Canada, there are 1.5 million more people using food banks on a monthly basis, not to mention that one in five Canadians is skipping at least one meal a day because they cannot afford to eat. This is because food price inflation is also at a 40-year high. “Canada's Food Price Report 2023” has predicted that a family of four will spend up to $1,065 more on food this year. With many Canadians struggling paycheque to paycheque, the rising cost of food is breaking their banks.

The dream of home ownership is also fading fast. When the Liberal government took power, Canadians spent 39% of their paycheques on their monthly housing payments. Now they spend 62% of their paycheques. This is reflected by the growth of average rental and mortgage costs. Mortgage payments have doubled, from $1,400 per month to over $3,100 a month. Rent across Canada has doubled, from $1,172 to $2,153 for a two-bedroom apartment, and it has more than doubled in Canada's largest cities. This is why we must get interest rates under control.

For years, the Conservatives have warned the Liberal government that its out-of-control spending has consequences and hurts Canadians across the country. However, it responded with the infamous quote from the Prime Minister that budgets will balance themselves. We are now eight years into the government's tenure and have seen the effects of the Prime Minister's so-called self-balancing budgets. It has been a disaster for Canadians.

According to an article last month from the Financial Post and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, over 10 years, real GDP per capita growth has been at its lowest since the 1930s. The article states, “This extended period of slow growth has widened the gap between per capita growth in the United States and Canada, demonstrating that the causes of our slumping growth are domestic, not external.” The Liberals can no longer blame external factors for their own failures. The economic troubles our country now finds itself in are a result of the failed economic policies of the government.

In conclusion, I think it is in the best interests of every Canadian that this House call on the government to rein in its spending. It is time for the government to show the fiscal restraint that was promised by the Minister of Finance prior to the introduction of her latest budget. Instead of cancelling Disney+, let us cancel the deficits, axe the taxes and balance the budget.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives love to stand up in the House and claim to be the stewards of the economy and to have presided over the previous government with balanced budgets, but they only balanced the budget once and it was a fake balanced budget. It was at the expense of a lot of infrastructure in Canada.

The member opposite ran on a commitment in the last election to both price carbon and run deficits. I do notice there has been a little change of heart of late on the other side, but there is a lack of a plan. It would be great to hear directly from the member on this. Any balanced budget would require program cuts. What specific programs is she suggesting the government cut?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things that we might decide not to spend Canadian taxpayers' money on.

Let us talk about the carbon tax. We would cut the carbon tax. We would stop paying high-priced consultants. We would not allow the Prime Minister to consider exorbitant spending on vacations. We would not provide sole-source contracts to Liberal insiders that have cost Canadians millions of dollars. We might get rid of the infrastructure bank.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that the motion paints an accurate picture of the difficulties faced by Canadians and Quebeckers. However, there is a problem with the solution. For the Conservatives, the solution is to eliminate deficits. They think that when the deficits are eliminated, all the problems will be magically solved: The cost of housing will drop, and households will have less debt. We really do not agree with that.

We are going to vote in favour of the need to table a plan to return to balanced budgets. We agree with that because governing requires planning. To govern is to anticipate. Tabling a plan to return to balanced budgets is the least a government can do. However, we do not agree with the measures that the Conservative Party is promising to take. Eliminating the carbon tax is the wrong thing to do. I would even say that it should be increased.

Could the Conservative Party propose more realistic solutions?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe that at every step of the way, Conservatives have been providing solutions to this place and to the current government.

The fact of the matter is that after eight years under the Liberal government, Canadians are struggling. We are hearing from our constituents in our ridings. Although the government assures Canadians that they have never had it so good, it only really shows how out of touch it is. It is time for the government to take economic policy seriously and return to balanced budgets. It needs to start paying attention to monetary policy.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always like to point out where we have common ground. One thing on which I definitely agree with the member is that people are struggling to make ends meet. However, the solutions seem to be where we differ. For example, why do we never hear from the Conservatives about taxing the ultra-rich large corporations? With consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments, we saw the corporate tax rate decrease from 28% in the year 2000 to 15% today.

When will we see the Conservatives finally call out large corporations and the ultra-rich to pay their fair share so that we can see that money go where it belongs? This seems like a good, tangible solution to move forward with.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, as the official opposition, we have been very clear about what Conservatives would do. The priorities of the Conservative plan are to make Canada work for the people who work. We want to see powerful paycheques with lower taxes so that hard work pays off again. We want to bring home lower prices by ending inflationary carbon tax 1, carbon tax 2 and deficit spending that drives up inflation and interest rates.

We want to bring in homes people can afford by removing government gatekeepers to free up land and speed up building permits. I know that only Conservatives can bring home a country that works for people who work and is a place for people to invest in.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always wonderful to rise in this most honourable and esteemed House and be with my wonderful colleagues.

Before I begin, I would like to take 40 seconds, as I understand we are nearing the end of the session, just to say some thanks. First I will thank my wife Rose at home, and our three daughters Eliana, Natalia and little Leia, because there is a bit of an age difference there. I want to thank them. We can only travel to Ottawa and do our jobs and be away from our families with the support of our families, so I want to give a quick shout-out to them and tell them that I love them very much and that daddy will see them soon back home.

Second, I say thanks to Pina and Evelina and Francesco and Dima, my team back in Vaughan. I will see them tomorrow at our job fair, where we will be together. I want to say thanks as well to Natalia, Anthony and Sashalie, the team here in Ottawa. Sashalie has been with me for a number of years and has seen me at my best and worst and in my ups and my downs. I want to give a special shout-out to this individual, because she is exceptional in every way. My wife and I treat her like family, and she is a very special individual for our family.

As I begin this evening to speak to the opposition party's opposition day motion, I need to reflect on what our party has put in place since day one in 2015, when I was elected and we formed government. I reflect on everything we have done to move Canada forward, to invest in Canadians, to strengthen our middle class and to assist those working hard to join the middle class. I think about the Canada child benefit and what we have done there. I think about the Canada workers benefit, which we have strengthened three times now. Cheques will be arriving to the hard-working, low-income and middle-income Canadians who will benefit from this.

I will be splitting my time with one of the most honourable and learned scholars I have the pleasure to work with, the member for London North Centre.

Getting back to the measures we put in place, I reflect on the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and the Canada workers benefit, which benefits working-class and lower-income Canadians. This measure was first introduced prior to our government, but we have strengthened it so much. I reflect on the climate action incentive plan, on the $10-a-day child care plan, on eliminating interest on student loans and apprenticeships, and the list goes on. It includes raising the basic personal exemption amount to $15,000, which is a tax cut literally in the billions of dollars for Canadians. In 2015, the government lowered the tax rate for middle-income Canadians, which was billions of dollars back in the pockets of Canadians, and asked the most wealthy in our society to pay a bit more. That is how we build an inclusive economy.

We signed trade deals. We completed CETA and got it across the finish line to see trade between Canada and Europe. We signed CUSMA, ensuring that we came out with a strong free trade deal with the United States and Mexico. We completed CPTPP, again putting measures in.

We lowered the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% for small businesses across this country. We put in place a volunteer agreement and then a second agreement to lower credit card user transaction fees for small and medium-sized enterprises across this country, saving business owners literally billions of dollars in the coming years so they can invest back into their businesses.

Since day one, our government has been focused on investing in Canadians and investing in Canada, ensuring we have a strong, favourable investment climate to create jobs. We have seen over 900,000 jobs created here in this beautiful country since the pandemic ended. We have seen our GDP recover. We have had the backs of Canadians and we will continue to do so.

I thank my colleagues for providing me with the opportunity to participate in today's debate.

First, I would like to point out that, contrary to what the opposition would like us to believe, Canadians are not the only ones facing this economic reality. Inflation is a global phenomenon. With the key investments in the economy that were announced in the 2023 budget and also in the 2022 fall economic statement, the government is ensuring that those most in need get support.

I would also like to remind the official opposition that well before this tough economic time started, our government was already investing in the middle class in order to grow the economy and enhance Canada's social safety net, all with a view to making life more affordable for Canadians.

We brought in the Canada child benefit, which has helped lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

Yes, we lifted Canadians and children out of poverty with the Canada child benefit.

We increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, increased old age security for seniors 75 and over, and enhanced the Canada pension plan with provincial partners to allow more seniors to have the secure and dignified retirement they deserve.

Yes, we came to an agreement with all 10 provinces to enhance and expand the Canada pension plan, which will benefit Canadian workers for generations to come. Unlike the official opposition, which views the Canada pension plan as a tax, we have used it in investing in hard-working Canadians so that they can have a secure and dignified retirement.

In 2021, we made an historic investment in a Canada-wide early learning and affordable child care system. This has already helped reduce the fees for regulated child care by 50% on average and lower fees to only $10 a day in six provinces and territories.

In the province of Ontario, we have already seen a reduction of 53%.

The education minister in the Province of Ontario applauded this agreement. We have worked together on this. Our investment is saving families thousands of dollars of after-tax money. That is their money, and we are going to help them out.

We are going to ensure that kids have the best start in life and we are going to ensure that the national day care plan, with the bill that was passed, will ensure it for generations.

To ensure that every Canadian has safe and affordable housing, we proposed a plan that will help double the number of new homes built in Canada within a decade, help more Canadians buy their first home, and stop the unfair practices that are driving up prices.

With the time I have today, I want to focus on this last point, housing. We know that for too many Canadians, including young Canadians and new Canadians, the dream of home ownership is drifting further and further out of reach, while rent is now more expensive across the country. This shortage of affordable housing is affecting our economy.

Without more homes in our communities, companies have a hard time attracting the workers they need to grow and succeed. When people spend more of their income on housing, they spend less in our communities. The problem is complex and long-standing, and a solid plan is needed to tackle the many different factors that are making housing more expensive in Canada.

First, we believe that homes should be for Canadians to live in, not a financial asset class. The federal government remains concerned with the financialization of housing across Canada, and introduced important measures in budget 2022 to address it, including a two-year ban on foreign investment in Canadian housing, a tax on underused foreign-owned homes, the taxing of assignment sales, and ensuring that property flippers pay their fair share.

Although investors own a significant share of Canada's rental units and will play an important role in building new homes, the government recognizes that too many Canadians have experienced excessive renovations.

I look forward to questions and comments, and I want to wish all of my hon. colleagues a wonderful and safe summer for them and their families and all of their loved ones.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I believe you have received advance notice, and that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, when the House adjourns later today, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 18, 2023, at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2), provided that, for the purposes of any standing order, it shall be deemed to have sat on Thursday, June 22, 2023, and Friday, June 23, 2023.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.

All those opposed to the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Balanced Budget

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals seem to have two contrary positions. In budget 2022, it talked about a strategic policy review, and said, “These efforts would target savings of $6 billion over five years, and $3 billion annually by 2026-27.” That is coincidentally when, in last year's fall economic update, the Liberals showed there would be a return to balance.

Could the member say whether he supports a return to balance and believes we need to have those guardrails in place? Does he also think that the Prime Minister's characterization of anything that denotes a responsible spending review as austerity is a bad situation for a Canadian government?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is someone I have known for many years in the House, and I have travelled with him. I can say the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is a dear friend.

That is a very important question that I, as an economist, would definitely like to address. I have always believed in Canada maintaining its AAA credit rating. Our deficit-to-GDP ratio should always be on a declining trend, as our deficit-to-GDP ratio is now and is being maintained. I also believe that we must always review our spending. I think that is a natural thing to do. In the budget, we have identified a number of savings, and that was in budget 2023, so we should continue to do that.

We have maintained fiscal prudence in our government. We have done the right thing in having the backs of Canadians during the pandemic. That is why we have recovered so quickly. That was the right thing to do, and any economist I ask would state that. At the same time, we must be fiscally prudent. I have always believed in that. I will continue to believe in that, and I will continue to advocate for that. That is the path we are going on, and we will continue to be on that path.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I would like to talk to him about something he did not cover, namely the fiscal imbalance. The Liberal government has too much money for its budget items, so it is spending like there is no tomorrow in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Then it tells us it has no money for critical expenses like health transfers.

I hope no one will try to tell me that Quebec and the provinces wanted it this way. In classic style, they were given no alternative.

What does my colleague think about the fiscal imbalance?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was an important question about relations between the provinces and the federal government. Our government has made a lot of progress with the provinces on health agreements that add up to nearly $200 billion. We worked hard during the pandemic to help all the provinces with their expenses and their health care systems. It is very important that we continue to do so. Collaborating with all of the provinces in our beautiful country is very important.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard the Liberals say that they have everybody's back. I do not know about other members, but where I live, when I drive around, I see more homeless people than I have ever seen in my entire life. It can be seen right across the country. At least with the Conservatives, we know they are not going to build purpose-built housing. However, that is what the government promised. It is building approximately 7,000 units a year, on average. There are 300,000 people who have core housing needs right now. How is that having people's backs?

This is a crisis. When is the government going to stop propping up its wealthy friends and its real estate income trusts and make sure it invests that money into making sure people have a place to live?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, housing is a core issue for all Canadians. What we are seeing here in Canada is what we are seeing worldwide. As part of the Canada-Europe delegation when we were in France two weeks ago, I saw the headline on Le Monde was “La crise du logement...”. It is an issue not only here in Canada.

We are addressing it. We have the $4-billion accelerator fund. We have the rapid housing initiative. We are working with municipalities. We are working with provinces to ensure they receive the resources they need. We do know there are a lot of issues with zoning and housing that are at the city level. The cities are the creatures of the provinces. We understand it is in our Constitution.

We ask members to please understand that our government is seized with this issue. We have been for many years. We will continue helping Canadians to ensure that, if they wish to purchase a home and have a roof over their heads, that we will be there for them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to talk about a motion that is very clear and simple, but that has many negative consequences for my community of London and our country.

To begin with, what was our government's approach during the pandemic? It was a compassionate and fair approach.

It is compassionate and fair. So much so, that former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney, just two days ago, entirely endorsed the approach taken by the Liberal government during the pandemic, and the leadership of the Prime Minister in particular. That speaks volumes about the current state of the Conservative Party. It is not the Progressive Conservative Party, obviously, as it is something that has existed officially for many years now after dropping the progressive part from the official name, but something, also more importantly, that its former leader now sees very clearly. Not once did former prime minister Mulroney mention the Leader of the Opposition's name in his comments, which I thought was quite interesting and quite telling, based on what is happening on the other side.

I mention all of this, and my intent here tonight is not to be overly partisan, but since the motion itself is partisan from start to finish, I think it is quite fair to point out where current Conservatives stand in relation to giants of the Canadian Conservative political tradition. I mentioned Brian Mulroney. I could have also mentioned Joe Clark.

What we ultimately have at stake here, if we look at the motion and think about it in broad terms, is a debate about the view of government. What is the place of government, particularly during trying times, during a time of inflation, which does exist? Not a single member on this side, not a single member in the House, regardless of their party affiliation, would deny that. It remains a hard time out there. I hear it from constituents. I make a point of regularly engaging the community. I do hear about the challenges they are facing paying for gas, rent and groceries.

It begs the question of what approach should be taken during this time to address the challenges that Canadians are facing. On the one hand, we have an approach offered by the Conservatives, which very clearly states, and it is not even subtle as it is quite direct, that regardless of the context, regardless of the circumstances, people should fend for themselves. Every individual is responsible for their own actions. Therefore, if one takes that seriously, as my Conservative colleagues do, then individuals need to find their own way. While government should exist, it should provide the very basics in the form of a military, a police force and basic infrastructure, but apart from those things, it is up to the state to get out of the way to allow individuals to succeed or to fail.

It entirely ignores, within that context, within that frame, the economic plight and position that one might be in to get to that outcome, whether it is success or failure. It is something devoid of context altogether.

My friends on the other side and their leader are known to quote philosophers from time to time, including people such as Adam Smith, who they will use as justification for their policies. If one were to look at the work of Adam Smith, they would immediately recognize someone who had a very responsible point of view. He placed incredible priority not only on the rights of the individual but also on the community and the need of the community to support the individual. That is the context. That is the missing link from what Conservatives offer when they try to justify their policies. I just referenced a philosopher. There are other examples that one could give, where this approach is taken, unfortunately.

On the other hand, we have the approach taken by the government. It is an approach that I support, and an approach that I think colleagues in other opposition parties, by and large, take seriously as well. It is the idea, the notion, that one needs to be there for individuals during very difficult times, particularly those who are most vulnerable.

We can look at what the government has done, particularly in recent years and during this session of Parliament. Since it is our last day here, I think it is important to reflect on what has been achieved during the latest session of Parliament. Dental care, child care and things like this, which social champions for years have advocated for, have been put into place by this government and other parliamentarians. Yes, I look to colleagues in the NDP and thank them for their support.

The government acted on these things and we see thousands of Canadians benefiting. Child care fees have been brought down already, cut in half at least, or even more in many provinces. I am quite confident that we will get to the level of $10 per day, certainly by 2026 if not sooner, across the country.

Dental care is for children to start with, but it will be expanded. All Canadians who fall within the eligibility criteria will get access to a dentist, which they did not have before. There should never be a time when a Canadian lacks access to that very important part of health care. Dental care is health care. Oral health care is as important as the rest of health care.

Those are some examples. I have limited time, but I could give many other examples of how the government is there for people. It needs to be there during trying times, particularly for the most vulnerable among us.

The motion, as we see, calls for the budget to be balanced. On the face of it, how could one stand up against that? One has to think in terms of the consequences. For every action there is a reaction. It is a timeless truth. It is true of the sciences; it is true of public policy.

I have asked this of my Conservative friends. Never once have they had an answer for what they would cut to get to a balanced budget. Would they cut pensions? They would have to. Would they cut unemployment insurance? They would have to. What about the historic health care deal that was finalized by this government in support of provinces and territories? They would cut that as well. The Conservatives voted for child care the other night at third reading. I was quite surprised, but I think it is a political ploy, because I know that if they were ever to form government, they would cut child care as well.

What about the most important crisis of our time? Inflation is certainly the challenge if not the crisis of the moment. However, if we were to look more broadly and think in those terms, we would recognize immediately that climate change is our most important challenge. We have an obligation as parliamentarians to put that front and centre. Members can disagree with the actions taken with respect to carbon pricing, among other things, but this government has made it a priority.

It has been said before that this government has followed the example of Brian Mulroney. It has been the government that, compared to others, has done the most in Canadian history to advance a climate change agenda. That would end should a Conservative government form, in particular under the opposition leader. I take it from his comments that he does believe in climate change, but I wonder if he really does, because if the solutions he has offered say anything, he in fact only believes in it as a slogan. He says this to get the attention of centrist voters and nothing more.

These are the issues at stake. What would the Conservatives cut to get to a balance? They would cut all of it and leave behind a country that would be entirely changed. Stephen Harper made that commitment. He almost made it a reality. He said that if he became Prime Minister, we would not recognize Canada. Thankfully we recognize Canada still. However, we know the opposition leader would take that approach and multiply it tenfold.

That is why I as a member of Parliament, joining with fellow colleagues on this side of the House, want to make clear that we stand against that every step of the way. We also stand against it for another reason. That side is completely irresponsible in offering anything concrete, apart from things like cryptocurrency as some sort of hedge against inflation. That is deeply irresponsible. It makes no sense in the current context. I wonder what colleagues on the other side are trying to do when they advocate for it.

I will end my comments there. I look forward to questions on this important issue.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify one thing. The member said the motion called for the government to balance the budget. Actually, the motion simply calls for a plan from the government to balance the budget. I thought it had one, because in November it tabled the fall economic statement, which called for a balanced budget in 2027-28.

The member has equated, somehow through his warped logic, that balancing the budget equates to cuts. Given the fact that the government's plan is to balance the budget by 2027-28, what is it going to cut?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member, because when we worked together on the finance committee a number of years ago, I thought we worked very well together. I am not sure what has happened for him to take a negative tone here tonight, but I think I see his sense of humour. I know where he is coming from. I know he raises those points in good nature.

I will simply offer back what is very clear, and that is that the deficit is coming down in a very pronounced way. That is what happens when one focuses on setting the table in a way that encourages economic growth. That will continue.

Where are the Conservatives on issues like the Volkswagen plant in the community of St. Thomas? That is just down the road from London, Ontario. They are against that investment and the 3,000 jobs it would create, not to mention the billions of dollars of economic growth that comes as a result of investments like that. What they are calling for in this motion would prevent Volkswagen from going forward.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I put the question to a Conservative colleague earlier. I am going to ask my colleague the same question because he tells us that he is concerned about the fight against climate change.

In 2022, $275 billion was spent to clean up the mess. That same year, the five big oil companies made $220 billion in profits.

This government, which spends a lot, but also very badly, because it prioritizes bad things, doled out $20 billion to big oil. It also put $30 billion into Trans Mountain.

Does my colleague think that this is consistent with a desire to fight climate change? Does he consider this to be acceptable, wise spending?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government's approach is very responsible. My colleague and I disagree on this issue. What other option is there? I am not hearing any alternatives in my colleague's comments.

Yes, he did raise concerns with what the government has done with respect to a number of things, namely Trans Mountain, but I would submit to him that if the government would have gone in the direction he prefers, we would have had thousands of Canadians out of work. The government made the right choice in that case. It was a choice in the national interest, a difficult one, but our environmental policy certainly provides a balance.

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

Madam Speaker, I notice that my colleague said the “support” of the NDP, and I would like to say the “leadership” considering that only a few years ago, in the last government, he voted against that same dental care bill. However, I am really glad to see that he is now for it and sees the value of it.

One of the issues we in London share, which is shared across the country, is the issue of affordable housing and renovictions. In my riding, which is very close to his, tenants at the Webster Street apartments have been facing renovictions, and there are serious consequences.

We have called on the government to create a housing acquisition fund to ensure that rent remains affordable so that not-for-profits or cities can buy buildings that are being bought up by large market-based corporations. This is another great idea by the NDP. Could he comment on that?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear from my colleague down the way in London—Fanshawe.

First of all, on the specific issue she just raised, I need to see more in the way of that. We all care about housing here, and I did see her and the leader of the NDP in London raising this idea, but there is not much detail. There is precious little detail, so one cannot comment on that in any meaningful way.

On the other issues raised, when the NPD raised dental care in the past, it was not an approach that left a lot of detail. I could not support it then. There is more detail now and I support it of course.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise tonight in this House of Commons, perhaps on the last of this cohort of Parliament. I will be splitting my time with the fabulous member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who was first elected in 2000 when she was 12 years old, the youngest parliamentarian in Canadian history.

It is an honour and privilege to serve and to talk about this motion today. Of course, this is the Conservative Party's opposition motion, and I must say that it is very reasonable. I am hoping we will get unanimous support across the aisles on it.

The motion raises the concept that we need a balanced budget. In fact, it does not even ask that the government commit to a balanced budget. We are merely asking it for a plan to get to a balanced budget.

As my colleague from Manitoba said earlier, it is something the Liberals had in their plans less than nine months ago. In their fall economic statement, they actually called for a balanced budget in 2027-28. However, much has changed since then, including $60 billion in new spending and an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio, despite the fact that the finance minister said just nine months or so ago that we would not see an increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio. She said, “This is a line we will not cross.” Well, the line was crossed, and now the trajectory is for the debt-to-GDP ratio to go up.

Our motion notes the IMF has warned that Canada is at the most risk for a massive mortgage default. That is just a fact. I am sure everyone can agree with that. Average mortgage payments are up 122% since the Prime Minister took office. That is a fact too, just like saying the grass is green and the sky is blue. Canadian households also have the most debt as a share of GDP out of any country in the G7. Once again, that is just a fact.

As I said, I am hopeful that we will get unanimous support for our motion. We are not even saying that the government needs to balance the budget. We are asking for a plan to balance the budget.

Let me explain this a bit and give some context as to why the government may not support this motion.

When we look at balancing the budget of a government, it is really, in high-level terms, not much different from balancing the budget of a household or a business. We have revenue on one side and expenses on the other. I am going to start by talking about revenue and the struggles the government is no doubt having and why it may not be able to get to a balanced budget.

According to Philip Cross, former lead statistician for Statistics Canada, in the last decade, we have had the lowest economic growth since the Great Depression, since the 1930s in other words. It is 0.8% per capita over the last 10 years, which is basically stagnant or no growth over the last 10 years. That is a fraction of what it is in the United States, a fraction of what it is in Switzerland and a fraction of what it is in Ireland. We are an outlier given our poor economic growth per capita.

It is true that if we look at the entire GDP of the country, there is a bit more of a positive note, but that is simply because we have had high levels of immigration. It is not really a great thing to say that even though we are bringing in newcomers, which is fantastic, we are not actually increasing the GDP per capita. We have newcomers coming in, but unfortunately they have economic struggles. They cannot find housing. Of course, we have had the recent immigration scandal with students. We need to be much more accommodating and welcoming to our newcomers, in my opinion, but that is a digression. The reality is that per capita GDP is at 0.8% over the last 10 years. That is the lowest in the G7 and the lowest in the OECD, and it is an absolutely abysmal number.

Why is revenue so low on the government side? Why are we not getting that economic growth? Well, there are some policy reasons for that. One is that our productivity is among the lowest in the OECD and among the lowest in the G7. Productivity is measured in contribution to GDP per worker per hour. If we look at Switzerland, it is at $55. If we look at the United States, it is at $65. If we look at Ireland, it is at $84. These are 2018 numbers, and members can source them.

These are countries without our land and without our incredible resources. Most notably, we have the hardest-working, most educated and smartest people in the world here in Canada, yet we have a lower productivity than most of the advanced economies. We are, to finish my story, at $50.

There is a notable exception in Canada. We do have one sector of our economy that is absolutely blowing out the roof and doing fabulously. That is our energy sector, which is well over $500 per hour, 10 times as much as the average.

What is the government doing? It is trying to eliminate Canadian energy. If our productivity numbers do not look good now, and they do not, in the absence of our energy sector we would be in deep trouble. Our prosperity as a country would be in jeopardy.

We have that productivity issue. If we look under the hood at what is creating that productivity, that is another problem. There are a number of issues. One is we are forecast to have the lowest capital investment in the OECD over the next 20 years. All the numbers I am saying can be sourced and cited.

When we do not have capital coming into the country to refurbish machines in factories, to build new buildings and to create new infrastructure, the infrastructure, equipment and buildings all go out of date, and that reduces our competitiveness.

If we have a machine in a factory that was built in 2023 and we are competing against another factory that has a machine built in 1960, obviously the one built in 2023 is going to have a huge advantage, and the government is pushing away capital. How is it doing that? It is by adding uncertainty.

Just in the most recent budget alone, there were two provisions for retroactive taxation. Retroactive taxation is going back in time and saying that someone was told their bill was X, but now it is being changed to Y.

That is something we see in economies that are not advanced, something we see in countries with poor economic performance. That is something, quite frankly, that we see in authoritarian regimes. We cannot just go back in time and change what the bill was on the customer. In this case, it is the taxpayer. We are pushing away that capital.

Another significant issue that is undermining our productivity numbers is our innovation framework. Our innovation framework in Canada is among the worst in the G7 and among the worst in the OECD.

Canadians are producing great ideas. I say “ideas” instead of “intellectual property” because our ideas are not becoming intellectual property, as we do not have the appropriate government regulation and framework in place to capture those ideas and make sure that Canadians prosper from them.

What is actually happening today, unfortunately, is that while our universities, our young people, our innovators and our entrepreneurs are coming up with amazing ideas and those ideas are actually becoming commercial successes, the trouble is that it is not in Canada.

They are becoming successes in the United States of America. They are becoming successes in Ireland. They are becoming successes around the world, but not here in Canada, because we do not have the government framework to capture those ideas to put in place the precedent conditions to make sure we exploit those resources fully.

Our ideas go offshore. They manufacture products and create services, with no money going to the Canadian public, and then they are sold back to us at an incredibly high price. We get hurt both ways.

I wish I had another 20 minutes to talk, but I only have a minute left. I have only talked a little about the revenue side, but I will talk briefly about the expense side.

The Prime Minister came into office saying that he would balance the budget within a couple of years. We never saw the budget get balanced. In the fall economic statement, we saw that there was a plan to balance the budget, yet we see no balance in sight now, according to the budget.

When we have a government that is sucking the oxygen out of the economy, that is pulling the fuel from the economy and taking it out, it is slowing down the private sector, which is leading to a productivity crisis in Canada, which is putting the prosperity of our nation at risk.

We need a leader and a government in this country that will balance our budget and turn hurt into hope for your home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.