Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating a confidence motion in the Prime Minister and the government. I think this gives members of Parliament a great opportunity to lay out a variety of issues, not only of the government but also the Conservatives, who are bringing this motion. It gives an opportunity to examine and look under the hood of where that party stands on a number of issues, including some that are just simply not clear yet. I look forward to using the next 10 minutes to go through different things in terms of how I view the government. I sit on this side of the House, the government caucus. I do not sit in the Privy Council.
I will talk about where I see things that the government has done well and things that I think we need to do better on. I will also compare and contrast this with where the Conservative Party is today.
I want to start with the economy. Yes, there are challenges around affordability. We have heard comments in the House. I have had conversations with my own constituents. It might be the same for the Deputy Speaker in West Nova.
It is important to examine the point that this is a global phenomenon. I listened to the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex the other day. She stood up in the House and suggested that Canada is the only country dealing with affordability challenges, that the government alone is responsible for the difficult periods we have gone through.
I will remind her that we went through a global pandemic, and I would invite her to read any newspaper around the world. We will see a lot of the same headlines: There are challenges around housing, the cost of living and affordability. I will remind Canadians at home that, as we have gone through a difficult period, thankfully, the government has been here to support Canadians along the way. Interest rates are back down within the target range of 2%. The hope is that we can see further Bank of Canada interest rate cuts, overnight lending.
It is important, when the Conservative Party stands up, to try to keep some element of credibility. When they talk about these issues, there is a level of nuance that exists. I want to highlight a few statistics for people at home. We have had the second-best cumulative economic growth in the G7 since 2015.
When the Conservatives get up and suggest that the country is broken, that nothing good has happened, they should be a little bit more pointed in their attack about where the government can do better and also recognize that there has been success. That is the second best economic growth in the G7. Many people at home may not know that; if they listen solely to what they may hear from the opposition benches, I do not think it is reflective of where we are at.
We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Of course, that is an amount of debt as a proportion and size of the economy, which has been a really important target for the government to maintain. We have a AAA credit rating. We are one of the only advanced economies and countries in the world that have a AAA credit rating. We have seen the highest wage growth in the G7 since 2019.
I have said this before. I know that this does not mean that every Canadian who is sitting at home right now is necessarily feeling good about their circumstances. There are challenges. However, it is important, when we are in this place, to show a level of balance and reasonableness. If we are going to do that, we have to be able to highlight some of the successes the country has had and areas in which every parliamentarian, regardless of where they sit in this place, wants to continue to push government. That is our job as parliamentarians: to continue to push for better for Canadians.
I also want to highlight the fact that we often hear from the opposition benches about how, again, nothing good is happening in the country. However, they never talk about the fact that we had the third-highest amount of foreign direct investment in the world, not on a per capita basis, just in the world, in 2023. Those are really important numbers.
We have had productivity challenges over multiple governments for the last number of decades. The government has recognized that, and I think that it needs to continue to be stringent and focused on that question about what we can do to increase innovation and productivity in this country. I think we need to be focused on reducing regulatory barriers and red tape.
We have a massive natural resource benefit in this country. We have to make sure that we are balancing, of course, environmental outcomes, indigenous participation and engagement on these issues. At the same time, we need to build big projects that get things done in this country. I think the government has made some strides in this area, but I would humbly suggest we need to do more.
When we look at the overall economic realities, I would suggest that the government has had a pretty strong success story. When I compare it to the slogan factory on the other side, I am not hearing a credible plan in terms of what the Conservatives would actually do. When we write three or four slogans on the back of a napkin, that does not represent responsible public policy, in terms of what the opposition would do differently.
Let us talk about Canada-U.S. relations. This issue is extremely important; Mr. Trump returns to the Oval Office in January, and his inauguration is coming up. This poses challenges for Canada and other western liberal democracies.
The president-elect has talked about imposing a 25% tariff on all products from Mexico and Canada. I think that would be bad economic policy for the United States and, of course, it would have impacts on the Canadian economy. However, we have to examine who is the best to lead that relationship. The Prime Minister has an existing relationship with Donald Trump. The current government was there during the renegotiation of CUSMA to make sure that we worked alongside our American partners and Mexican authorities and that we protected Canadian interests at the same time. The government did extraordinarily well in the 42nd Parliament during that period. Last week, the Prime Minister went to Florida; he was the first G7 leader to sit down with Donald Trump following his election victory.
I want to compare that to what I have seen in the House of Commons. The leader of the official opposition has said such things as that we have to put Canada first. I do not know what the heck that means, but it sounds isolationist. This country that exports many products around the world, whether in agriculture, forestry, critical minerals or energy; I do not think the idea of looking inward is good for Canada. That is the Conservatives' play, but they have not articulated what the heck it means. The Leader of the Opposition stands up and suggests that now we have to kill carbon pricing because Donald Trump is in. That is not a responsible element.
I look at what the NDP leader has said, and he suggested striking some type of war cabinet. No, lighting our hair on fire is not the way to go here; we need to have a level of statesmanship.
I have not agreed with everything the Prime Minister has done, and we have had some vehement disagreements. However, I do think that he has looked far more like a statesman than the other two leaders of the major parties in the House.
On foreign affairs, it is outrageous that the leader of the official opposition has not committed the Conservative Party to a 2% defence target. The Conservatives love to beat their chest about the work they would do for the Canadian military, yet they fail to remind Canadians that, when they left office, defence spending was actually below 1%. I think this government has taken a little bit too long to get there, but we have gotten to the 2% commitment by 2032. Looking at the tabled estimates, we can see that defence spending is increasing this year and will continue to increase over the next number of years. I find it extremely irresponsible that, as a government-in-waiting, the Conservatives will not commit to 2%. When will they formally commit to the 2% GDP target on defence? They owe the answer to Canadians and they owe it sooner rather than later, particularly in the environment we are in.
Let us talk about security clearance. We can think about this for a moment: Earlier, the member for Timmins—James Bay, referenced in his question that there are allegations that agents of the Indian government were involved in the Conservative leadership campaign, particularly to dispel and hurt Patrick Brown, who was running against the member for Carleton. The member for Carleton is the only leader of all the major parties to not get his security clearance. Why would he not do this? This man wants to be the prime minister of the country, and he refuses to go through the security clearance process to be adequately advised and informed by national security advisers on what is happening on foreign interference. That is not responsible leadership.
If I am presented with a question here about whether I have confidence in the government and the Prime Minister, I would ask this: Do I agree with everything that has happened? No, but I compare it to what the alternative would be. How could I ever vote for this confidence motion in good faith when the leader of the official opposition, who wants to be the Prime Minister, has not even gone through the vetting process?
The last piece I want to talk about is on affordability and social programs. Whether it is on dental, pharmacare or school food programs that really matter in my neck of the woods in Nova Scotia, the Conservatives vote against it. For seniors, they voted against increases to OAS, moved the eligible age for benefits from 65 to 67 and voted against increases to the guaranteed income supplement. On housing, they are taking away the money that we are giving to try to build more housing. We had the largest number of houses built in Nova Scotia in 2023. We still have to clean up that issue, but it is well on its way; however, the Conservatives want to take away the funding that actually builds the homes that we need to house Canadians.
For all those reasons and more, this is why I will not be voting in favour of this motion.