Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to today's Conservative motion. This is kind of an emotional moment for me, because, for once, we will finally be able to vote in favour of a Conservative motion. It is not too populist and it contains pretty accurate information. It also contains some very important statements.
I will not reread the entire motion because that has been done several times today. However, I will read my favourite sentence, and I would like members of the House to pay attention and to take a moment to think about what it means: “[E]very dollar the government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians”, Quebeckers and citizens.
I deliberately paused for a moment so that members could think about that. That sentence still applies when the government gives contracts to its friends, to two or three guys working out of a basement whose only job is to get government contracts and then subcontract them out while keeping a cut for themselves. Everyone know what I was talking about there. Every dollar spent comes out of citizens' pockets. When we talk about the cost of groceries or the cost of housing and members are pointing fingers at everyone else, the fact remains that the citizens are the ones who bear these costs.
I see members here in the House of Commons voting against minimum indexing, not even decent indexing, for old age pensions starting at age 65. However, groceries are not any cheaper at age 65, 66 or 67 than they are at age 76. One could even say that they are more expensive because it seems as though people generally eat less and less as they get older. I am being somewhat ironic here, and I hope that everyone takes it that way, but these are serious and important issues.
I am concerned. I am concerned about the new Prime Minister. I will not say “the new government”, because another sentence in the motion says that this so-called new government is following the same plan as the old one. I quite agree with that statement as well. The Liberal leader may have a new face, but putting a new label on a jar of peanut butter does not change the fact that it is still the same old peanut butter in the jar. That analogy has been used in the House before, and I really like it. I want to remind people that this is the same government that we have had since 2015. The Liberals will boast about how interest rates have just gone down and about how wonderful they are, but when interest rates go down, it is because the economy is slowing down. When it comes right down to it, we have a government that is bragging about a downturn in economic activity and that seems to takes pride in the fact that the GDP per capita is falling. That is not supposed to happen in a well-run G7 country. Everything I said in that last sentence is true except for two words, “well” and “run”.
This country is badly run. That is why we are happy to vote in favour of the motion. I say this for the benefit of my Conservative colleagues who are listening. I am not joking. I am genuinely happy to be able to vote with them. Often, only half of what is in the motions they present to us is true. They choose extremely important topics, but then they throw in a bunch of populist rhetoric and facile statements that force the adults in the room, by which I always mean the Bloc Québécois, to vote against them, because we cannot vote in favour of things that are not true. Today, though, we are happy. I congratulate the Conservatives. I want to give them a pat on the back and encourage them to keep going like this. That is what we call positive reinforcement. Today is a good day.
Ordinary folks are stretched to the limit, even if inflation is under control. We are glad it is under control, but it was so out of control for so long that prices are still too high compared to wages. That is the problem, and for the members opposite who are making such bold claims today, I would like to remind them of a little concept relating to public administration. It is possible and normal for a government, whether it is the federal government or the government of Quebec or a province, to run the occasional deficit. A deficit is a buffer that is there to help the economy. However, it is not normal to have repeated deficits, especially when the economy was already doing well to begin with. That is the problem. A government should run a deficit to stimulate economic growth when the economy is not doing well.
However, deficits have now been run so regularly and for so long that the government is in the process of inventing new ways to do accounting. The Liberals are going to present them on November 4, and I am looking forward to seeing what they have come up with. I hope Canadians will be savvy enough to see through the scam. The Liberals are going to present a deficit that will probably exceed $100 billion, but it will not show up because they will have separated the good debt from the bad debt.
When we pay a debt, we have to actually pay the debt. The money has to be there. Furthermore, every time a government goes into debt, it means less money for direct services to the public, for direct transfers to the public. This is appalling. I am using that word advisedly, and I do not think it is too strong. We are sick of seeing this, we are outraged, and we would like the truth to be told. We are here as elected representatives of the people. An election campaign is supposed to last a month and a half. Now it is over, so can we talk now and look at what we can do for the common good? I know I am very naive, but that is part of my charm.
People are hurting, and if we want to help them cope, we need to address the root causes of this problem. One of the ways that the government can help low-income individuals in a time of crisis is to give them direct support. I spoke about old age security earlier, but I also want to talk about employment insurance. How many years has this government been promising to reform employment insurance? To answer my own question, it is now 2025 and they started talking about reform in 2015, or even before that. That is over 10 years ago. There has been no progress on that front, and yet people are required to contribute to the EI program even though nearly half of contributors are not even entitled to benefits.
Imagine people shopping around for home insurance and being told by one insurance company that it cannot reimburse them if their house burns down. Obviously, they will immediately move on to the next company. However, workers in this country are bound hand and foot. They are stuck with this lousy government.
If the government is incapable of managing money, it should transfer it to Quebec. Quebec will know how to manage it. In fact, the money ought to have been sent back to Quebec anyway because the federal government has a tendency to take advantage of crises and tough times to further centralize power. Do members know why the government centralizes power? It is because it has too much taxation power relative to its responsibilities. The government is not going to win many votes by making transfers to the provinces and Quebec based on the principle of sound administration. That just sounds like something that would be done by someone who is capable of managing their affairs properly.
The government members just want to make grand announcements from a balcony, outside on a sunny day, with the wind in their hair as they proclaim, “We're going to help Canadians, we're here for Canadians, we're going to help the middle class”. However, what we are seeing is that the middle class has been getting poorer the entire time. People are now turning to food banks. The list goes on.
Regarding grocery prices, as the Bloc Québécois agriculture and agri-food critic, I want to mention that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has taken a very smart, meticulous approach to studying this issue and that we have identified issues and put forward solutions. This may not be of interest to everybody, but we have found solutions.
For example, the code of conduct aimed at improving the bargaining power of small suppliers with respect to big grocery chains is still being implemented. It is a long and arduous process, but it is a measure that could change things. Let me give another example. If we want to tackle the cost of food, we need to stop increasing the cost of inputs. When we choose to tax fertilizers, we should not be surprised when food products become more expensive. There is a logic to all this.
I would also like to correct some misinformation that we are being given. The government is telling us that Canada's debt is acceptable because it represents about 45% of the GDP—it was 42% before, so it is still 3% higher—and it is comparing us to other G7 countries. In France, for example, there are no provinces that can incur debt. In other words, we are talking about total debt. In Canada, if you add the debt of Quebec and the provinces to that of the federal government, you reach about 100% to 110% of GDP. That is equivalent to France's and the United Kingdom's debt, and close to that of Italy, so things are not going so well after all. We need to start taking this seriously and helping people who need it.
I still have a lot more to say. Let us start by cutting the infamous $83 billion for oil companies.