Debates of May 21st, 2024

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

The hon. member is quite correct. We do not reference members' absences or presences in the House, as is the practice in our Standing Orders.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that Conservatives were wrong when they predicted inflation would go up as a result of the supports we were investing in for Canadians, and we know that they were also wrong when they tried to suggest that inflation was created by the current government, because inflation is something that is being seen throughout the world. It is something that was being seen in the United Kingdom, which had a much higher inflation rate than we do. It is something seen in the United States, which continues to have higher inflation than we do.

As a matter of fact, I got a real kick earlier, when we were debating the budget bill, out of how a member from the Conservatives got up and tried to make a witty joke by saying he does not know what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine, as though he was trying to somehow suggest that there is no connection between the two. The rich irony is that there is something fundamentally connecting Kraft Dinner and Ukraine, which is the resources and the supplies.

The CEO of Kraft himself said that the supply constraints and probably wheat coming out of Ukraine were impacting the ability to keep food prices low, so I just find it absolutely remarkable that Conservatives believe what they are saying. I believe that they have convinced themselves to believe what they are saying, but the reality is that it is just not true. They were wrong when they suggested that investing in Canadians was going to lead to inflation, and they are wrong when they continue to try to make the point that inflation is something unique to Canada, but I think that the vast majority of Canadians understand this. I think that they understand what Conservatives are doing, how they are trying to utilize those specific anxieties against them and weaponize them.

We look at exactly what the measures are that Conservatives were objecting to, and they are the exact measures in the fall economic statement that Conservatives said would lead to inflation. It is things like strengthening the Competition Act to ensure that the Competition Bureau is empowered to hold grocers accountable and prioritize consumer interests. Just so Canadians understand, this is really important because in the United States, the largest grocery retailer owns or controls 11% of grocery sales, and that is Walmart. Do members know which is the largest one and what its percentage is in Canada?

[An hon. member]

Loblaw.

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

That is right, Madam Speaker; it is Loblaw. Does my colleague know what the percentage is? He does not. It is 42%, so 42% of groceries in this country are controlled by Loblaw and their retail. With Loblaw and a couple of the other large grocery retailers, very quickly I see how we have created an oligopoly here. There is an oligopoly operating in our country when it comes to grocery sales.

It becomes very important to identify what is going on here and to put measures in place to ensure that they are properly dealt with, and that is exactly what we are doing. It is what Conservatives are against. They are very loud and have a lot to say when it comes to government spending, but they are absolutely silent when it comes to the profits that are being made by Loblaw, probably because the Leader of the Opposition's own chief campaign manager, Jenni Byrne, is an actual lobbyist for Loblaw.

The campaign manager of the very individual who is standing up trying to fight against lobbyists and saying lobbyists are useless is a lobbyist for Loblaw. She has a vested interest in ensuring that Loblaw keeps its prices high, so how can anybody actually listen to what the Leader of the Opposition, the member from Carleton, says, and actually think that he is being genuine in any regard when he suggests that he understands the impacts of the greedy corporations we are seeing, in particular the retail grocery giants and Loblaw, which I mentioned specifically?

A few of the other initiatives that are in this particular piece of legislation, the fall economic statement, include unlocking $20 billion in new financing to build 30,000 more apartments per year. Conservatives love to get up and talk about how no apartments have been built, apparently. However, I can tell members that, in my riding alone, we are now on the 13th affordable housing project that has been built in Kingston, in which the federal government has, in one way or another, been a partner.

I get a real kick out of it when I hear Conservatives go on and on about it. Meanwhile, when the Leader of the Opposition was the housing minister, he built a total of six units, not buildings, not duplexes, but six units. The number seemed so wildly low to me that I thought it was impossible, that somebody was doing something with the numbers, that there was no way that this could be real, until I realized that this information actually came forward from an Order Paper question that was tabled. That information is tabled and available for everybody to see: In the one year when the member for Carleton was the minister responsible for housing, he built a total of six units. Those six units happen to be in Quebec, if one goes and looks at the numbers. However, he built a total of six units throughout the entire country.

Another thing we have done, through the fall economic statement, is to launch the new tax-free first home savings account. This has helped over half a million Canadians start saving for their first home. We have supported seniors through the Canada pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement and old age security, all of which are indexed to inflation.

Canadians are not going to forget very easily how the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government previously, raised old age security, the OAS, to 67 years old. If there is anybody out there who is in their early 60s and planning for their retirement, they should seriously give some thought to whom they want to elect as their next government and whether it is a former member of a government that has a track record of actually increasing old age security requirements from 65 years old to 67. In all likelihood, it is going to happen again.

Earlier tonight, when we heard Conservatives talking about how they “balanced” the budget in 2015, I guess that, from an accounting perspective, they did. However, let us look at what they did to get there. They increased old age security to 67. They closed veterans' offices, doing this all on the backs of veterans. They did a number of initiatives to “balance” the budget. They did it in that one year in 2015, if one actually accepts the fact that one would consider that a balanced budget.

People have to understand that, when Conservatives talk about balancing the budget, they are really talking about cuts. Out of every Conservative budget that was introduced between 1990 and present day, only two of them ran surpluses. There is that made-up surplus I just talked about from 2015. There was also another one that Stephen Harper had at the beginning of his term as prime minister, and that was because it was coming off the heels of Paul Martin's surplus that he had. This is factual. Those are the only two budgets that ran surpluses. The reason governments will run deficits is that, as long as one's economy is growing at a faster pace than one is taking on that debt, one is still in a very healthy position. It is why we continue to get AAA credit rating reports from independent third parties for the manner in which the government is spending and taxing.

It is why we continue to see, year over year, more investments made in Canadians. It really just comes down to whether one thinks that there is a role for government to play in ensuring that people have equal opportunities.

That is exactly what we see as a government, which is that at least people have to have a shot at being able to strive and get what they want and hope to get out of their career and their life.

There are a number of other issues in here. The other one I wanted to touch on was $10-a-day child care, which was another issue that was updated in the fall economic statement. This was a very important piece of legislation that brought in an opportunity to empower more people to get out into the workforce. We have already seen it. We did not have to go far in order to study it. All we had to do was look at what was happening in Quebec and how more people, more spouses and, in particular, more women were in the workforce as a result of $10-a-day child care. This is another advancement our government is continuing to push forward in the spirit of fairness, equality and opportunity for everybody.

I look forward to the question from the member for Saskatoon—University at this point. I am sure it will be great.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is very telling that we have a Prime Minister who does not think about monetary policy. We have members of the government who obviously do not think about the long-term financial help of Canada. We have seen this over nine years. There is almost no one in Canada who thinks they are better off than they were in 2015.

Right now it is approaching midnight here in Ottawa, and this is a financial bill. Why is the finance minister not here? Instead, we have a backbencher leading the debate. How does he feel toward a finance minister that has indebted our—

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

Before I let the hon. member finish, we have a point of order from the hon. member for Fredericton.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Saskatoon—University signalled the presence or non-presence of a member in the House, and he is not allowed to do that.

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

I apologize for my distraction.

Order, please. I make the same comment I made to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, and I remind the hon. member for Saskatoon—University of that.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am not saying that the finance minister is here or not here. What I am asking is why this member is leading the debate for the government versus the actual finance minister. This is very telling in terms of why we are in so much trouble.

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

Madam Speaker, for starters, monetary policy is something that is done by a central bank. Fiscal policy is done by a government. Maybe the member should just Google those terms so he knows what he is talking about in the future.

When he asks about who is leading the debate, he makes it sound as though this is the first time we have talked about this. This is the fall economic statement. We have debated it.

[An hon. member]

It is summer.

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

He is right: It is summer. Madam Speaker, that is because the Conservatives will not let this debate collapse. They just keep dragging it on and on. The finance minister has spoken to the bill, probably on more than one occasion. He suggests I am the lead on this when we have been debating it for nine months.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see the member holding back what he really thinks in the House. Yes, like the member, I am very disappointed that we are actually standing in the House of Commons in May debating the fall economic statement. It is unbelievably outrageous, and maybe we will still be debating it next fall if the Conservatives decide to do that. Who knows?

My question for the member is actually quite serious. He talked about housing. One concern I had with the fall economic statement and that I share with all my colleagues within the NDP is about the lack of commitment to helping with indigenous, Métis and Inuit housing, especially in northern communities, especially in Nunavut.

My colleague from Nunavut has stood in the House many times and asked why the government has not committed meaningfully to territorial funding for housing when we know that the crisis is desperate in her community. Why did we not see more in the fall economic statement with regard to indigenous housing?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very serious question. I think it is a fair question, and an angle that, quite frankly, the government should be pushed on because there is always more that we can do.

There is the northern housing plan, and I might have the name wrong, but perhaps that is not enough. Perhaps this member thinks that it needs to go further, and perhaps there is validity in that claim. However, it is important to reflect on the fact that we are building a lot of housing throughout the country.

I used to be a mayor of a city in Ontario, and I could not have ever thought of the federal government coming to a municipality and saying, “Let's make a deal” and completely leaving the province out of it. That was unheard of in my time in local government. However, we have a Minister of Housing who is literally going around the country to different communities and saying, “I don't even want to talk to the province. How do I make a deal with you directly?”

However, the member's question was more about indigenous communities, and I completely accept that. Perhaps we should be doing more, and I encourage her to continue to stand up to challenge the government to do more in that regard.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, we have been at this for a while. I have been listening a lot, and all I have been hearing from the other side are slogans and not actual answers to things. It is getting so ridiculous that one member decided to read purported emails from his constituents and angrily brought it over to slam it on our desk, but it was edited. He was reading an edited email. He was not even reading his own constituent's writing.

I was wondering if the hon. member could speak to the ridiculousness of the sloganeering that the Conservatives are offering. They are not even offering real answers.

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

Madam Speaker, it goes to what I was saying during my speech, which is that Conservatives are taking people's anxieties, turning them into a weapon and then using it against them. They are trying to convince Canadians that inflation is completely driven by the government and that spending more money on people through budget measures is going to drive up inflation even further, but only the opposite in both of those regards has proven to be true.

Conservatives are really good with their slogans, but they are not so good when they switch from having to rhyme off three things to four things because inevitably one of them misses at least one of them, except for a few key ones that are really good. They have been practising a lot, but the rest of them keep missing one. Although they are good with their slogans, it is not doing anything for Canadians.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear that a Conservative government would axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Let us bring it home.

I have a very specific question for the member, and I hope we will get an answer for it. He has promised an answer. Everyone has heard him say that he is going to give us an answer. In what year does he believe the budget should be balanced, if ever?

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

Madam Speaker, on the first part, I want to congratulate the member because he is one of the members who can get all four of those out perfectly. He did not lose eye contact and did not show that he may be forgetting one. It was very well done.

To answer his question, I would ask him this: In what year did Brian Mulroney balance the budget? In what year did Stephen Harper balance the budget?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, I am answering his question.

For growing economies, we know that, as long as our growth is outpacing our deficit, we are in a fiscally responsible position, and that is the reality.

They are laughing right now, but they should talk to Stephen Harper because that is all he did, or Brian Mulroney. It is exactly what they did. They never balanced a budget. They balanced one budget in 2015, apparently, by slashing veteran services, and then they had another surplus in 2007 on the heels of Paul Martin's surplus. However, the reality is, and this is exactly what Conservatives do because they know that, as long as our economy is outgrowing our deficit, we are in a fiscally responsible place.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is very simple: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is the answer, and I am sorry—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

This is not a conversation.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the member does not like hearing the slogans, because the Conservatives are, as he said, very good at communicating with Canadians.

My question is very simple. In what year will this magical budget balance itself?

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

Madam Speaker, she was not successful, because she gave one and then she had to look down. She could learn a lot from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, because his delivery was really good.

I go back to exactly what I said before, which is that what matters the most is how the economy is performing in relation to the deficit that is projected. That is what matters the most. Conservative prime ministers have known that. Conservative premiers know that. Everybody has always operated in that manner.

If what the member is saying was true, then one would think that these fiscally responsible Conservative prime ministers all throughout Brian Mulroney's time and all throughout Stephen Harper's time would have just done exactly what the Conservatives are saying, but they did not.